User talk:Risker/Archive 9

1 August 2010 -

Interim measure

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Interim restriction Polargeo (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Butterfly conservatory

This is the DYK main page lead DYK hook right now! Yeah! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"Resident butterfly pictured" - hilarious! Finally a sense of humour on the main page! Nice photo by the way. Risker (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't see that as funny but now that you mention it, it is! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocks

See the log for edit filter 294. These are IPs being recruited by User:JarlaxleArtemis on 4chan /b/ to make attacks (for proof, see here, where the idiot forgot to remove the directions from the edit summary). NawlinWiki (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

For you

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your tireless work last night (I'm sure you know what I'm referring to), I hereby award you with this long-overdue Tireless Contributor barnstar. I know you probably don't get this enough but I think I speak for everyone when I say "thanks" for all the work you do around here. Now go to sleep. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Shirik! A short but good night's rest was much enjoyed. I do wish certain people wouldn't suddenly start behaving badly just as I'm heading for my cozy comforter... Risker (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

RFAR/CC

Hi Brad, any idea when there might be some movement on this case? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not from New York, but I can tell you that I spent several hours last night pulling together the proposed decision. I expect we're looking at Friday night or Saturday for posting; there's still work to be done. Risker (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Sorry for the Brad bit, I got a bit lazy cutting and posting the question. :o Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: You can see the message on Newyorkbrad's talk page; I have family commitments for the rest of the weekend as well, and had unexpected work commitments during the week. Probably next week, as soon as we can get to it. Risker (talk) 05:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Meat/sock/SPI

Risker, I just don't know policy well enough, and considering yesterday's debacle, am reluctant to make a fool of myself :) What is the best way to handle this likely meat/sockpuppetry? Google reveals a lot about the users removing the tags (an entire list of students at a particular University). Do I submit an SPI, or are they just blocked for obvious meatpuppetry? It's not a "fringe" topic, because there is medical research, but the research is often poor, it is an area that is ripe with quackery, and poor or primary sources are used in the article, instead of secondary review sources per WP:MEDRS. Now that I've reviewed all of the edits, perhaps the University would warrant a block? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Gah! Do one measly SPI report, and look what happens! :-) I'd suggest an SPI, myself. Not entirely convinced that this needs its own article; I have the feeling that a solidly written paragraph as a subsection of something else (but what?) would be appropriate. But that's just me. Risker (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do an SPI. Good gosh, one nasty post to a respected user turned up a can of worms at both EMDR and PTSD; I hate the fact that we have no means of checking medical articles for overreliance on primary sources, from which OR and POV flow. So much to do, so little time :) Thanks for the advice! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Sorry for the random question but I was just wondering how you create a belligerent list when creating/contributing to a article, I've been looking around on the help page on creating an article but haven't found anything I thought I would ask you as you seem like you know what to do seeing as your an administrator.Davido488 (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Davido488 - sorry for the delay in responding. I'm not entirely certain what you mean by a "belligerent list", but I suspect you are talking about an information box that lists which countries/combatants were involved in a war or battle. That's not particularly an area where I personally am familiar, but a good place to inquire might be WikiProject Military History. I'm going to also post this message on my talk page and ask other editors who watch it to also make some suggestions, so you might want to "watch" that page to see if you get any helpful suggestions. Best, Risker (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Copied over fromhere. It would be great if any TPWs could help this user out.

Ezra Pound

If you feel like a break from the weighty stuff, you might remember that you are a pretty damn good copy editor, and help out with Ezra Pound which is close enough to FAC that I'm calling in all the heavies I know. If you are bogged down and busy no worries. No harm in asking, but you imput would be very much appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ceoil! You flatter me! I am hoping to have a bit more content-writing time starting Monday (right now I'm writing...erm....non-content), so will be happy to give it a look in the coming days; it's easy to lose sight of the project's objectives when one is immersed in the meta side of things, and this will be a good refresher. I did notice something already on a quick scan, which probably needs your input to ensure the appropriate modifiers are inserted: "[101] By 1934 was certain monetary reform was possible through left-wing fascism, but was annoyed to be seen "as an apologist for Mussolini and facist Italy"." Risker (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No hurry with this one. Because its a lith article, the writing has to be 'just so', hence my asking. We will be taking our time, so whenever you get a chance is fine. All the best. Ceoil (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring,

I have not reverted once. Only left a new message every time. I would however appreciate it, if you could at least warn them to stop attacking me.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to request that you remove this attack directed at me from their user page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

(Discussed off-wiki. I think we're okay now.) Risker (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision

In the absence of the assigned clerk, and because it is quicker to do than to ask other Arb Clerks, I have semi protected the above Proposed decision page. I have sprotected indefinitely, but as I am an involved party I suggest that someone "take over" the responsibility of the protection and the appropriate duration. I have also RevDel one of the vandal edits, but since this is more difficult to assign to another editor I shall desist. I am copying this to all drafting ArbCom members, and the Clerks talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, LHvU. You did the right thing. Risker (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Renomination of Don Valley Parkway

Hey Risker, I just renominated the DVP for featured article status, was hoping you'd be able to drop by. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Floydian; I'll try to pop in over the next week or so. As of about 5 minutes from now, I'll be out of town for a week, but I expect to be able to check in regularly. I've got some other things that I'm watching closely which may need to be attended to first. Risker (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, whenever you're able to is dandy by me (its yet another nominations with absolutely no reviews) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to give you a friendly reminder, in case it had slipped your mind. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank semi-spam

Thanks for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. PS: love the xkcd comic! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Timothymarskell

Surely as the account has been advised of the other routes (although mybe not specifically, and you may like to add an email link to arbcom) a talk page block is also in order? AGF does not say "act all nice to the bitter end". It's likely a 4chan troll anyway, and should be treated as such but if not well..... Either way further talk comments are likely to be useless. Just my 2p. Pedro :  Chat  21:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You know, it worries me that so many people have such terrible difficulty assuming good faith. Do you really think I would be so nice to a 4chan troll? Risker (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've typed a lot of responses to this but they all border on NPA so, okay. Whatever. Pedro :  Chat  21:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Still, AGF eh risker, and don't feed the trolls? [1] ? Pedro :  Chat  21:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, what I meant was that I'd hope you'd assume good faith about my having good reason to leave the block message that I did, Pedro. I can't and don't expect you or anyone else to assume good faith about an account that's been this disruptive. He has the email address. Risker (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, and mail noted too. Thank you. It's silly to comment without all the facts and often I do. Sorry. Not Nerd :  On WR  21:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there any hope of getting all this courtesy blanked? DrKiernan (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Risker, have you (or another arb) reviewed this? Is the Signpost breaching an ArbCom directive? [2] [3] [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, thanks for helping to review upcoming Signpost stories. What is the Arbcom directive in question, and how is it a concern here? A note in the Newsroom would be good. I am going to publish this Signpost issue soon, it would be good if this could be resolved as quickly as possible. Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, HaeB, but for reasons made clear by the arbs, I hope to avoid extending this discussion to other pages; the arbs have made it abundantly clear in numerous places that aspects of this situation make it unconducive to discussion on Wiki, so I'd hope to see Signpost comply and keep that entry to basic info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: rethinking this, it was probably inappropriate for me to edit that Signpost entry, as I have a COI in this matter. Please take into account my concerns and the arbcom directive, but do as you must with that entry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There has been no Arbitration Committee directive per se. I would classify it more as a sincere request from multiple arbitrators that this not be discussed or covered in great detail on-wiki as it involves deeply personal issues. HaeB, my email is always open to you if you would like to discuss the situation further. KnightLago (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds better, and HaeB, I regret and apologize to you (and Ncmvocalist) that it only dawned on me after the fact that I should not be editing a Signpost entry where I have a COI. Definitely my bad! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm entirely unfamiliar with the situation at hand (including your COI - even if you have one, you should still feel free to voice such concerns, but again the Newsroom page might be preferable for that). I just need to decide whether we can publish the current version, and for that purpose, something that quickly shows whether the concern still applies or whether it has been resolved. If both you and NCM agree to the current version, the matter should be settled. KnightLago: Thanks a lot for the clarification and the offer, I hope I won't need it. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

NO :) Because of my COI, and considering arb requests, I will not be discussing this on other pages ... I do hope you'll understand. On a separate matter, I hope you don't fall prey to concerns that you MUST stick to a publication timeline-- that was not the case with past Signpost editors, and taking the time to get it right is more important than sticking to deadlines. It's a Wiki-- there are no deadlines, and I'm sorry to see you getting pressure in that direction. I'm not happy with the current version, but I do have a COI in this matter, and I should not have interfered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Good morning everyone. HaeB, I think that KnightLago has answered essentially as I would, although I'll point out this particular edit summary. I don't really have a problem with the Signpost reporting the temporary desysopping; the status of a user is something the community has a right to know, but I do not believe that it is necessarily the community's right to know exactly why a user's status has been changed temporarily. That edit summary implies that what was newsworthy about this status change was the that people hadn't had their prurient curiosity satisfied with a public explanation of the reason for the temporary status change, and that this reticence about the private issues behind the temporary desysop on the part of Arbcom was the main reason that this matter was being covered by the Signpost. Now, *that* concerns me far more than a short paragraph saying "XX was temporarily desysopped". Risker (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm having a hard time parsing this post, Risker; is there a problem with my edit summary? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops sorry, not your edit summary, that of Ncmvocalist. I've fixed the link. Risker (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Goodness. I see. Well, I'd best move along now. HaeB, I do hope you'll consider a shorter, less charged accounting, similar to this version, and give some thought to how to reduce the politicization that is creeping into the Signpost-- this marks three incidents that I'm aware of, in two weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• For the record, in spite of the unjustified accusations that may have been made by certain arbitrators (who have been the subject of Signpost coverage lately), my edit summary was responding to Tony's edit summary which was asking whether a desysop reflects badly on the user desysopped. My edit summary specifically went to say that this concern is not justified as no one is aware of the circumstances (and when people asked about those circumstances, this was kept secret) - that is, without knowing those circumstances, no one can presume to know if the desysop reflects badly on the user or not. We could revisit the issue of whether it reflects badly on the user should those circumstances become public knowledge. I said this in response to Tony (via edit summary) out of respect for the Committee's request for understanding. I assume Tony understood this as being what I meant, as it was not intended in any other way. That is, by no means am I encouraging users bound by privacy policy and other duties to commit a breach. It would be a shame if such a breach occurred at any time and became public knowledge, and I'm sure many people would not condone it irrespective of when it occurred or why it occurred. I hope that settles the matter and that the unjustified accusations come to a halt for the good of all involved, including the desysopped administrator. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this, Ncmvocalist; I do not want to attribute malice where none was intended. It is an unfortunate habit of many users to attempt to use edit summaries to ask and answer questions about edits; those edit summaries can often have the unintended effect of drawing more attention to an issue that one hoped to handle quietly. Often, a full-fledged talk page comment can turn out to be more discreet. In this case, I find your explanation quite reasonable, but would urge you to consider making such explanations in the future on either the talk page of the article or the talk page of the editor to whom you are responding, rather than in an edit summary. Risker (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem; I find my comments tend to draw more attention than my edit-summaries, but I take your point and it's not always so simple, even when it is between two editors. As you don't usually talk about certain users or their edit(s), it might be nice to let them know on the occasions that you do. There are times where editors will be accused of things that are far worse than that I've suggested here, or not so harsh, but those editors will still not care to respond unless they've been invited to. Obviously, this is just a thought/reminder, and it was moot in this case. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll note that Ncmvocalist did some further edits to the report a while ago and marked it as done later, but hasn't yet responded to my question here. Unfortunately, as I tried to explain above, I don't have the time to obtain a clear picture of the situation for myself, so I'll just take the lack of controversy during the past hours as a sign that the most severe concerns have been eliminated (while there might still be some normal disagreement about newsworthiness or such), and publish this week's Signpost issue in a moment. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In my case, the lack of comments is because 1) I was out for the day, 2) I hoped this was being resolved backchannel or by you investigating the issue further, and 3) I've just seen Ncm's explanation of the edit summary, which I agree makes sense and am glad to see. But, you can't expect arbs to redact a Signpost article about them, as they have a similar COI to mine, I do not feel that the issues have been resolved, and I repeat that I do not believe that publication deadlines should be more important than taking the time to get it right. I'm still troubled by the current wording. Just saying. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it would not be good style for arbitrators to edit the report directly (and your attitude command respect), but just like with WP:COI in the article name space, there are other ways for them to help solving the problem.

After reading your comment, I spent another 20 minutes (i.e. delayed the publication of the whole issue) clicking the links from that article and it is still not clear to me what the issue (or, for example, your COI) is here; I can only vaguely guess it might have to do with making it a bit more difficult for readers to connect two accounts, but that doesn't seem to be the whole story. I do want to get the Signpost right and I am open to concerns such as this, but if people cannot make the effort to present them to me in a form where I can weigh them against NCM's argument and act upon them, and instead expect me to spend hours guessing, contacting arbitrators by email etc. just to find out which sentence might be considered problematic for what reason, I'll have to conclude that there might be concerns, but that they are apparently not paramount. I'll also note that nobody has emailed me about the issue.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Without getting in to the COI or arb request issues, I'll spell out what I see as some of the problematic wording tomorrow on your talk, for future reference. I'd also add that some situations may require the editor of the Signpost to spend time on the issue, and I still regret to see that pressure to meet a publication deadline may be leading to issues in content. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not just the deadline (and all newspapers have one), it is also that I don't have an unlimited time myself and had seven other sections to publish too. What is more, the content that you objected to seems to have been online for more than 28 hours before you removed it [5][6].

Anyway, I look forward to your explanations. Note that there is a thread on WT:POST which might be more adequate for your future reference purpose, but that's up to you.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've seen that thread on talk, and don't plan to join into the ever growing political problems occurring at the Signpost; I have weighed in on the three in which I happened to be directly involved, only as I became aware of the problems by chance (Dispatches, 3000th FA, and this arb report), and think that three issues in two weeks that I'm aware of indicates a problem. To put it more bluntly, I think the editor of the Signpost needs to 1) choose writers very carefully, and 2) delay stories that aren't fully ready or investigated. That is no different than would be called for in a "real life" publication, and it's why you get paid the big bucks (just like Risker and me :) I strongly urge you to ignore these demands for strict publication timelines, as they seem to be seriously affecting content; you have to make the tough calls, and not be swayed by PsITA (like me, and others :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Readers are expected to come to their own conclusions based on the facts and context that are available to them. That is, readers will come to their own conclusions whether an entity says something about it or doesn't say something about it. In regards to our reporting, hiding parts of those reasons or hiding parts of the available disclosure (like timings) for political, bureaucratic, and/or utterly dubious reasons is not what The Signpost is about, and yes, this is an independent publication. For all I know, a reader may conclude any number of things, but my concern is making the available facts and context known where they are (at least, likely to be) of actual interest to readers. As for my own personal opinion, I think the three essential points are conveyed in my coverage. Firstly, the desysop occurred. Secondly, how long the desysop will last for. Lastly, fully disclosed context (in so far as I've said in my previous comments) about how this announcement was received and the subsequent developments that people may need to bear in mind. That is, (1) it makes it clear to all readers as to what type of discussion on the matter has occurred previously (that is, a concrete example) as well as the circumstances surrounding that discussion, including timings, and (2) that for the reasons quoted verbatim, an attempt to close the discussion was tried and then an attempt to collapse the discussion was tried, and (3) that for the reasons quoted verbatim, such discussion should not recur in regards to this particular issue. I think that's all that's left to say in regards to this part of the arb report. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

With apologies to Risker, I am going to continue the abuse of her talk page because 1) everyone involved seems to be following here, 2) I prefer to keep discussions together, 3) in this case, I prefer to not extend this delicate discussion to more pages than necessary, 4) I don't want to join in already politically-charged discussions at Signpost talk pages, and 5) I get on well with Ncm and see no reason to join in there.

There are three different issues here, and I don't want to leave any implication that my concerns are all aimed at Ncm's arb report. One issue involved grossly ill-prepared articles being put forward in a Dispatch, without the benefit of prior review (the Tools Dispatch, which later required significant editing by other editors and yourself). A second issue involves editorial oversight at The Signpost being exercised by editors other yourself (HaeB-- the 3000th FA), and your summary of that incident on my talk page seems to have overlooked previous discussion at Signpost talk pages;[7] [8] an editorial decision to eliminate that Dispatch was made by an editor other than yourself, even though it was clearly in progress. The third and separate issue is the arb report.

My concerns with that report can be seen in the version I suggested (although there was an interim complication in the misquote of Coren to Xeno, and if my inappropriate editing there accomplished anything, at least that misquote was corrected). Some of the language appears to be unnecessary editorializing which leads the reader: the whole issue of the timing suggests that there was more than usual interest and commentary on this particular desysopping. Is it not true that any such arb action usually generates significant and immediate commentary, and arbs are presumed to follow these cases closely and act quickly? Is all of that language necessary, or is editorial opinion creeping in? Can't a more straightforward account of the times involved, without adding qualifying editorial language, accomplish the same goal which Ncm rightly expresses above? My second concern is that, in spite of multiple arb requests clearly discussing the sensitivity here, was it necessary to highlight this desysopping first in The Signpost summary? This is an admin who conributed greatly to the Project and remains a signficant contributor to featued content, who hasn't used the tools-- in fact, has barely edited-- for years. We had CU/OS appointments, a significant case (Climate change) underway, and yet a relatively insignificant interim desysop is highlighted in the Signpost headline, even when mutliple arbs and clerks have expressed clear concerns that this matter is not conducive to on-Wiki discussion.

In summary, HaeB, I'm suggesting that you get the "big bucks" that we all get because you are the editor here, and you must retain and exercise editorial oversight and control to minimize what is increasingly looking like politicization of The Signpost, with editorial discretion being extended to editors other than yourself. You are the editor, and the buck ultimately stops with you; there will be times when that means delaying an article to make sure you get it right, or even disagreeing with a highly respected editor, and I hope that the pressure to maintain deadlines is not leading to these problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think everything included was necessary. For users who are fully familiar (or have vast experience) with the arbitration process - or any Wikipedia process for that matter - a sanitised version will accomplish everything a specific group of users will want it to accomplish. That is, if those users want to know more, they tend to know where to look, how to look it up, which bits to look at, and what it all actually means. But with regards to the rest of the community, particularly users who are especially unfamiliar with the way things work in practice (or don't quite appreciate it), we need to be able to give a well-disclosed account of what actually happens and what it actually means in practice without boring them to death. Enough of the latter 'group' has not been satisfied with past coverage because for a long time, it has failed to accomplish that to a satisfactory standard. And as for theory and expectations, as informative as procedural theory is, there are issues with its accessibility to readers, it's omissions, it's complications, its oversimplifications, it's contradictions, and more than anything else, there'll always be an issue of boredom when reading.

On more specific points with this report, I'd note that the headline did not state "User:name interim desysopped" as we were covering the event, not the user. As much as some of us might want something to be insignificant, I think it was fairly clear that users were not of the view that this event was insignificant. As for whether it is significant to the user or their standing in the community, see my comment on this page at 16:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC) and 06:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC); I echo those statements very firmly. To add more about discussion/timings after announcements, a lot of it is relevant to users understanding what something means. Immediate discussion about something is a valuable tool because it can convey users first impressions. Later discusson about something is also a valuable tool because it can convey any changes since the first impressions, as well as what people have spent some time thinking about. How long a discussion has run for before it has been closed/archived, or an attempt has been made to clse/archive it, is also important in making distinctions. No discussion is also a valuable tool sometimes (and ironically, from the horrible efficiency point of view, it's the least complicated for ArbCom to handle and it's the least complicated for The Signpost to handle - it means we all have less lines to write with regards to that :). Additionally, sometimes "what to do" and "what not to do" is best conveyed to users through very concrete examples of all three types. I think I've covered all that I can regarding the third and separate issue...though arguably, even that may be too much detail. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to make sure we're on the same page, I'm not saying you shouldn't supply links to conversations on the topic-- anything posted to Wiki is "fair game". I am suggesting that some of the language may be leading the reader to conclusions in ways that could be avoided. Rather than use subjective qualifyinng words like "immediate", etc., you can strictly report the facts, for example: at <x time UTC>, arbcom announced Y; Z editors weighed in the discussion saying a, and by < b time UTC> an arb changed to interim ... and so on. Rather than adding qualifiers, just report the straight facts. Relatively few editors weighed in on this, and the arbs acted as they usually would in such a case; this wasn't the kind of kerfuffle that we see in some other cases. A straightforward accounting of the facts let's the reader decide-- the same good practice we use in Wikipedia article writing. HTH, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok; in this case, I was saying "almost immediate" because the comments started after 3+ minutes, but I see what you're saying now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool beans-- we understand each other! My concern was magnified here because of the previous two incidents unrelated to the arb report, but we're making progress :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your tireless work on Pending Changes and your excellent panel presentation at the Wiki-Conference NYC 2010 on Pending Changes, and all the work that went into that, I hereby award you this Barnstar of Diligence with much appreciation. This makes a difference to Wikipedia. — Becksguy (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You did so much more work on this project, but you were kind and gracious enough to let me share a few moments on the panel. And your company (and let's not forget the sangria and salsa/chips) was a welcome change from banging away at the computer for the most of the rest of the year. Thank you for the opportunity, and thank you for your note on the WikiConference. — Becksguy (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Please vaporise this person

The link from this "editor's" page seems to suggest that they are me! They are not; in fact they seem to be a banned editor. Please vaporise/delete that page and link and ensure that they stay banned. Thank you.  Giacomo  20:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, lucky you! There happens to be a speedy deletion criterion wherein any page created by a banned user can be immediately removed, so I have done so. Risker (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That is most kind. Thank you. Who were they amyway - do we know?  Giacomo  20:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No idea, they were blocked over a year ago and I suppose it never really occurred to the blocking admin to wipe the userpage. Risker (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Life is one bug mystery to me. No, that's not a Freudian or "Giano" typo.  Giacomo  20:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment at Arb amendment page

Hi Risker, I have a lot of respect for all the hard work you've done as an arbitrator (I don't say that glibly—it's really very true), but I was a bit taken aback by this comment (it was not directed at any one person, and you may or may not have had me in mind) even though I understand your underlying point. I'm not very active at the moment and was not really attuned to what might or might not be going on with ChildofMidnight, with whom I am familiar as one of many admins who spent too much time trying to deal with some of the issues with his editing. When someone tapped me on the shoulder about it I looked into it further, and when I saw that you and other Arbs were skeptical of a connection (which to me seemed pretty obvious) I provided some more info, which I suppose constitutes "building a case" (and just FYI, my comments were completely my own and not coordinated with anyone in any way whatsoever).

You have not said otherwise, but I just want to make sure you know that I did not do this because it was fun or because I like going after people. As you are no doubt well aware a huge amount of community time was wasted dealing with C of M, and if that user is back editing under another account and being disruptive in the same way that seemed worth knowing so I looked to see if it was true. I would have assumed the ArbCom would also be concerned and would appreciate some help on a matter like this from admins familiar with the background, but your statement seems to suggest otherwise.

As an admin with experience dealing with a problem user sanctioned by ArbCom who is asked to come and look at a situation that seems related, I'm wondering what you think I should have done other than what I did—i.e looked into it and reported back as to what I found, which did indeed seem troubling. Again you may have had others in mind than me when you wrote your comment, and I'm a staunch advocate of reducing/limiting drama and personal confrontations, but the suggestion that examining what seems to be a problematic socking issue is an example of "far too much attention paid to 'social' issues" rubbed me the wrong way, and perhaps did others as well, though maybe it was just the wording and the underlying sentiment is different. Like you I'm obviously just a volunteer here and was merely trying to help when someone asked me to—personal issues had nothing to do with it and I would have been perfectly content to do and say nothing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bigtimepeace. I am sorry that you felt that my comments were directed at you; in fact, quite the opposite is true. I recognise that there are certainly some similarities between CoM and Freakshownerd. There is, however, a nearly insurmountable contradiction from the checkuser data (all IPs having geolocation thousands of miles away from where CoM was based, but in a small geographic area; main IP clearly a stable residential one). Indeed, I see the "tapping you on the shoulder" as part of the problem here, and I am really sorry that you were pulled in to this. You have limited wiki-time available, and I rather doubt this is the way you would prefer to spend it. To this day, I am surprised that it took an arbitration case to remove ChildofMidnight from the project; his behaviour was clearly unacceptable for a very long time before he was banned by the Committee. One might want to consider that level of unacceptable behaviour to be a benchmark; if others are behaving that way (including Freakshownerd), then the community can certainly take action. The Arbitration Committee is being asked to make an unprecedented type of ban extension, based on subjective evidence that is in conflict with known facts; in other words, even if everything had matched up, this is not the kind of ban extension the Committee makes. Right from the first checkuser, it's been made clear to those making the inquiries that the checkuser data is in direct conflict with any behavioural evidence, and people have been pointed to the option of making the case that Freakshownerd's behaviour is (in and of itself) problematic enough for removal from the project, yet nobody seems to be getting the message here, and there seems to be a nearly obsessive compulsion to link these two accounts, irrespective of whether or not there is any actual value in doing so. If FSN is behaving in a blockable way, he should be blocked, for as long as is felt appropriate by the administrator, with the support of the community where applicable.

I should perhaps clarify my use of the word "social" in this context. I perceive non-technical activities that don't directly affect article space to be part of the social structure of the project, in the same sense that blocking and banning are social constructs; most behavioural policies are aimed at maintaining the social environment so that it does not detract from the primary objectives of the project. I hope that makes things a bit more clear. Again, sorry that I worded things in such a way that you thought I might be disappointed in you; that is not the case at all. Risker (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Forgot about this for a minute, but I just wanted to thank you for your reply. I think the word "social" was indeed the lion's share of the misunderstanding, and I see your point much more clearly now. Best, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Hi, I've been watching Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision and I note your concern that the discretionary sanctions might change, and you think it's better to have the sanctions pinned down on the arbitration page.

At one time we had notices posted on the talk page of articles covered by sanctions, and so if things changed presumably clerks would have to buzz around editing the notice on each page. While that's inefficient compared to having a transcluded template with the wording on it, if the remedy isn't changed much it's an acceptable trade-off. This, from mid-2006 when I was a clerk on a case called Shiloh, is the kind of thing we'd do. The notice is still there.

As it happens, the community process for article probations, which was followed in this case prior to arbitration, uses a transcluded probation notice that is used in all community probations (see Template:Community article probation. There has been no substantial change in the wording of the notice since 2008. The editors are kept informed by warning messages--as in these proposed discretionary sanctions, nobody can be sanctioned without being informed that he's doing something sanctionable and advised what to do to conform to policies. --TS 03:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Stalking here ...Risker mentioned an important point that no one else seemed to pick up on or comment on. If the discretionary sanctions change and they are not included in the text of the actual decisions (rather than just a link to the discretionary sanctions page) then when someone is sanctioned under discretionary sanctions, the sanctioned editor could conceivably argue that they were blocked under the wrong discretionary sanction regime if it they had changed since the close of the case. That almost has the feel of "due process violation" if you will. Better to set it out in black and white on the case page itself where the remedy is approved. For practical matters it might not matter much if they DS don't change much from year to year -- but I still think explicit notice is appropriate and could short circuit potential gaming of the sanctions in the future. Just my opinion. Minor4th 20:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your point (and the worry Risker expressed). I'm trying to outline how in practice the involved parties are kept informed in past and more recent cases that are similar. To be frank I'm more worried that admins will stay away from the topic area than I am about somebody complaining that he didn't know about some obscure tweak in the wording of a process maintained exclusively by the arbitration committee. --TS 22:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Timely

Hey. We had a discussion in NYC where I mentioned the dismal state of the Homosexual transsexual article. I didn't start this discussion, but someone initiated one to merge that article with two others. I wanted to get your insight on what's going on. If you're fortified with some wine or caffeine, you can read it here. I have to be honest though, that I feel quite out to sea with the concepts presented. I don't think this is an issue of them being so technical as sources are not being optimally used. There are personality issues related to this suite of articles as you can see on the talk page. The whole thing is hairy, which I why I thought of you, natch. --Moni3 (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I took a quick look, but it was clear I'd had nowhere near enough, erm, fortification for that discussion. Looks like some kind of decision was made, though. I dunno, I've never been big trying to track all these various sexual orientations; my general feeling has always been "do what you want, as long as you don't expect me to join you and you don't startle the livestock", so my perspective probably isn't all that helpful. I do, however, appreciate the suggestion that I should periodically fortify myself...I can think of so many other applications for that principle.... Risker (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Witch of Pungo Pre-FAC

See User_talk:Rlevse#Grace_Sherwood_AKA_Witch_of_Pungo_Pre-FAC — Rlevse • Talk • 00:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Grace Sherwood - Witch of Pungo FAC filed

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grace Sherwood/archive1 and we're off. Thanks for your encouragement, it's been great. FAC constructive comments, help, review, etc would be greatly appreciated. Last night and this I add a lot, especially the "personal life" section, so review and copyedit of those edits would be greatly appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sent you an e-mail

That's all. Courcelles 16:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Read and responded, thanks! Risker (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Heymid

Risker, are there any reasons for you to watch my edits? I know you are an arbitrator, but I think you're getting a bit excessive. HeyMid (contributions) 16:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't watching your edits, Heymid; User:Conversion script has been on my watchlist for a long time, because it has periodically been vandalized. It just happened that your edit was at the very top of my watchlist when I logged on today. Risker (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No; I restored an earlier statement I originally did not instate. I had removed it, but when I then understood the word "originally", I restored the original statement. Please let me do this. HeyMid (contributions) 16:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, regarding the word "excessive": as soon as you see an edit that you revert, you simply rush to the editor's user talk page and comment on it. Please, calm down, arbitrator. HeyMid (contributions) 16:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

What in heaven's name are you talking about, Heymid? With your long and colourful history of making poor decisions anywhere outside of article space, this is not in any sense a knee-jerk reaction on my part. I have not used the word "excessive" anywhere. In this case, you are modifying a page that has to do with Wikipedia history that you clearly don't understand and in which you are inserting incorrect information. The best solution is for you to stop editing it. Those who *do* know and understand what occurred at that time will fix your errors. Risker (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope you've learned your mistake. HeyMid (contributions) 17:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not make a mistake, Heymid. You reinserted someone else's incorrect statement, and you did not know it because you do not know enough about the subject to be writing about it. Now please (1) stop editing that page and (2) stop holding this conversation on two separate pages. Risker (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, last questions: 1) How do you know that statement was inaccurate? and 2) Graham87 has been here since 2005. How can he know the history of Wikipedia better than me? BTW, I still think you need to calm down; it seems you've already lost your temper. Arbitrator or not, it's still not a privilege to shout on other's, like if you've lost your temper and/or you're angy. HeyMid (contributions) 09:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, criticizing an user for poor wikiquette (considering our conversations between each other) is IMO also excessive. Then I think I have the right to say you also have poor wikiquette. And I haven't stated that you have ever mentioned "excessive". You probably misunderstood me. HeyMid (contributions) 09:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now I get it. There is no way in which to provide you with constructive criticism in which you will find the critic's perspective to be worthy of your attention; instead you will impugn their motives. I have not shouted at you, I've not lost my temper, and I'm most certainly not angry; disappointed that you seem to be incapable of taking on board any correction of your behaviour, perhaps. I find it very disturbing that you would excuse your inserting of incorrect information into a page by questioning the competence of other editors, and implying that experienced editors who have been on this project for five years longer than you would not be capable of knowing more about the project than you do.

It's becoming clear that your behaviour has been consistently problematic and you now seem unable to accept criticism without attacking those who are trying to mitigate your poor behaviour. You are repeating the behaviour that resulted in your block on Swedish Wikipedia. It is unfortunate that you do not seem to have taken any lessons from that experience, or from the extensive support and advice you've received from a large number of experienced, skilled Wikipedians on this project. Risker (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, then it necessarily means I should reassess my recent behavior and think about how I can improve it. HeyMid (contributions) 15:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Please review this

[9] Thanks. Minor4th 20:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I review the contents of that page on a regular basis, and will review those links when I am doing my regular reviews. Thanks. Risker (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The page was getting unmanageable and just wanted to make sure you saw it. I've added another alternate proposed FoF re: WMC [10], building on Cla68's proposal. Minor4th 19:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding userspace deletion

Okay, thanks for letting me know. My apologies, I wasn't aware it wasn't allowed. It seemed marginally relevant given that Wikinews is a sister project, but yeah, I guess that would make sense. Regards, Tempodivalse [talk] 01:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request by user Rhode Island Red

Ask one of the admins directly involved with the Rhode Island Red block, you might like to have a look at the exchanges here when considering his unblock request. In his first entry in that section on 4 July 2007 he complains that "this probing into my personal information is strikingly offensive and is starting to feel like cyberstalking." What he regarded as "probing into his identity" he later referred to as being "invasive". This background needs to be taken into account when considering his much more serious contraventions of policy with respect to the publication of information about another user. He cannot claim to be ignorant of policy in this area; he knew that what he was doing was wrong because he objected to someone trying to establish the sort of information about him that he researched and later revealed about another user. In view of what he did, a 6-month block was considered at the time to be very lenient. --TraceyR (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Metrics

^ Might interest you, if you haven't seen it already. I guess it's in the navbox, but I hadn't noticed it until yesterday. Hopefully the analysis will be informative. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

RE: "flicking the switch"

Thanks for your kind comments on the Pending Changes discussion page. As you have probably noticed, I am a huge fan of Wiki and want to continue contributing. I didn't want to apply for any upgrade to my status through the back door, as t'were, but if there is a way I can be 'upgraded' I would like info on that. doktorb _words^deeds 16:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. No worries. Happy editing, glad to have you aboard. :-) Risker (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's great, thank you very much. Now all I have to do is get around to visiting the protected articles, you'll usually find me at far more obscure and less vandalism friendly pages :P doktorb _words^deeds 09:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Er...Maybe I am staring at this too much....There is one page (SummerSlam (2010)) with pending changes....I can't see anything wrong with the edit...but I can't accept the Pending Change? What obvious thing am I missing? Or is there an issue with my status still? doktorb _words^deeds 04:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doktorb - chances are that someone else also was reviewing the proposed change, and hit the "accept" button before you had a chance to. As this is only a trial of the pending changes process, there are considerably more reviewers than there are articles in the trial, so sometimes multiple reviewers are looking at the same edit at the same time. (Believe it or not, the first time that happened, we discovered a software glitch that had to be fixed! One never knows what will be discovered during a trial.) You've probably not done anything wrong at all. Risker (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Risker. I am probably sounding very dumb over this, apologies (I'm feeling bad for keeping asking you pointers, too, but anyways...). I am right in thinking there is no big "ACCEPT" button for pending changes? I spotted an outstanding Pending Change entry yesterday, found the edit to be pretty much fine and reasonable, clicked 'edit'....and then got myself stuck...I've tried to read the instructions but it seems to skip past what to do and lands squarely on other guides...Any info would be great! (Once I crack this, I can crack anything.....) doktorb _words^deeds 14:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

Reminder to self: Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage and also mw:Pending Changes enwiki trial/Roadmap

Talk page watchers are, of course, welcome to comment. Risker (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit to the watchlist notice. I fully understand that the anti-PC crowd is fighting a battle they can't win, but I really hate the slanted process and heavy handedness that's been the norm for the past several months...including the lead up to the initial "vote" for the trial. Oh well. Thanks again. --Onorem♠Dil 21:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I am truly agnostic on this particular bit of software. It's always been my position that it should have a fair trial, but it seems that at every step things have been problematic. First off, there was the fact it was introduced immediately on the heels of two other major UI changes (the addition of revision deletion to the admin toolkit, and the switchover to Vector). Then there was the fact that the version on the test wiki was *not* the version to be introduced here, so nobody could even test it properly on the testwiki. The trial criteria were not developed until just days before the trial itself, and there were no benchmarks set to determine whether or not there was any change over time, or whether that change was positive or negative. The majority of early supporters in the original PC poll wanted it to be focused on BLPs, but for some reason at the end of the poll it was decided that PC should be applied to currently protected or semi-protected articles instead, and those were the articles targeted in the trial. The WMF press on the subject specifically referred to the ability for anonymous and newly-registered users to edit long-time semi-protected articles of high profile topics (the George W. Bush article was specifically mentioned), without discussing this in advance with the community. (It lasted less than 2 days on pending changes, with mountains of vandalism during that period.) Then there was the promise by the lead developer that PC would be shut off at the end of 60 days unless the community clearly requested otherwise.[11] Four days later, when lead developer responsibility changed hands, the new lead developer announced that he would rather keep things running during any review, on a quiet page with only the most interested editors watching.[12]

Even with all of this disarray, I still hoped that we could get a reasonable trial of the tool. It was agreed that we'd start off with 2000 articles in the trial, starting with just a few and ramping up so that we'd hit the 2K articles around 2 weeks into the trial, with the expectation that if things went well, we'd add more incrementally, perhaps up to 10K; however, only a handful of administrators participated in adding articles to the trial, and I don't think we ever got above 1500. Further, at that point, we'd pretty well added all of the articles that were eligible under the criteria for the trial, except for ones in categories where one or more administrator had objected to inclusion; as best I can tell, their objections were based on the articles being honey pots for socks. I was one of the most active admins in adding articles to the trial, and I confess I sneaked in a pile of BLPs that technically didn't meet the criteria (they had been semi-protected in the previous 6 months and had fewer than 10 watchers). Indeed, one of the most telling factors on this trial was the fact that very, very few administrators appeared to be interested in using the tool as currently configured. I also note that the time that it has taken edits to be reviewed has continued to lengthen as time has gone on.

A few weeks ago, I led a panel on the topic of Pending changes at the New York City Wiki-conference. Thanks to DGG, Becksguy and Jamesofur, who were also on the panel. That same day, keynote speaker Clay Shirky talked about the fact that once a culture is "broken", it is not able to rebound back to its prior state. In my own closing statement, I reflected on that comment, and wondered if pending changes might be the "culture-breaker" for Wikipedia and, if it was, whether or not that would be a good or bad thing. Certainly the manner in which this entire trial has proceeded has shown that there are some pretty huge differences in what people perceive as the way we do things around here. I don't think the pending changes software or its use will be the culture breaker, but the manner in which it is being integrated and promoted into the project might very well be. I am very considerably concerned that this pressure to keep a bit of trial software running has resulted in a level of divisiveness between good-faith Wikipedians from which the community may not recover. Risker (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks even more. I was happy just saying thanks and doing a (hopefully non-annoying) bit of venting. That's a very interesting review of the timeline from your perspective. I've lurked for years without getting involved in much behind the scenes...but it seems there's quite a bit I missed on this subject. --Onorem♠Dil 03:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I only just got pointed at this post by a comment on the latest "poll" where it was described as "insightful". I just wanted to leave a comment that I would disagree if I could think of a superlative that worked. I can't so I'll go with insightful, too :-) I've spent some time in the last 2 days on the new "poll" talk page trying to argue basically what your conclusions are here. I know it will likely have no effect on a foregone conclusion, but I still felt honour bound to do it, having become seriously concerned that we will massively damage long term trust and support for at least PC itself, and at worst the entire project. I won't say it's good to see an in depth analysis which supports that worry, because clearly it isn't - but it is good on a personal level to discover that I'm not alone in these concerns. Thank you for such a thoughtful analysis. It should be compulsory reading  Begoon&#149;talk 17:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow, insightful and thoughtful in a single post! I will probably have to turn in my arbitrator hat now. ;-) Thank you for your kind words, Begoon and Orenem (and Ucucha too). This is my perspective from someone who is "from Missouri" on this software; I think actually that there were some positive and useful results that show potential for the use of pending changes in certain circumstances, after it's reconfigured to make it more user-friendly - but we aren't there yet, and keeping it running is not a motivation for anyone to improve it. Risker (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Lurking as always... I read this yesterday (iri pointed it out on her talk page). I found it very insightful as well. Regarding the poor deployment and technical issues, the Wikimedia Foundation is continuing to grow (pretty rapidly) and I think a good portion of staffers feel that more money will solve the problems that it's facing. There's been a lot of emphasis on, and push behind, the upcoming fundraiser, unsurprisingly, I guess. But, I think we all know the reality that the future holds. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What he said. The attitude seems to be "we need to do something, this is something, therefore we need to do this". This has ceased to be about the pros and cons of this (buggy) piece of software, and become a meta-issue about Jimbo and co's use of the mainspace for experiments. Sure, Jimbo's going to get his way come-what-may (if all this polling doesn't give him a mandate to do it, he'll just keep holding polls until he gets one that does), but every day this goes on is losing a little more goodwill. Quite frankly, if the devs really switched this "trial version" on without any actual way to turn it off—which appears to be the case—heads ought to be rolling. – iridescent 17:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, don't kid yourself: they're technically capable of turning this off without any problems, the developers just aren't allowed to. And it would take less than 24 hours to write an adminbot, get it approved, and reset the articles currently on PC to indefinite semi-protection, complete with a list for administrators to review at their leisure. (Actually, that can still be done, though obviously I won't be the one doing it, since I can barely cope with wiki markup.) So there is no difficulty from the technical viewpoint in ending the trial. Risker (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

PC/socks

I saw from the comment above that I still haven't explained myself properly to you. Now that I'm not tussling with you over an article's protection state, I thought it would be a good time to take a deep breath and try to calmly explain why semi-protection works well against sockpuppeteers, even when autoconfirmation is so easy to get.

I typically detect a sockpuppeteer by the pattern of edits across multiple articles. My watchlist tends to hover around 11,000 articles (right now it's 11,182). When a sockpuppeteer goes active, what I notice is that the same account has edited a telling group. What that telling group is varies from sockpuppeteer to sockpuppeteer, but they all have one. CharlieJS13, for example, edits the credits to a narrow range of popular music articles and articles about F1 racing. That's it. When he's using an account, he stands out like a sore thumb. Those two groups of articles are extremely active, though: an anonymous edit to either one is difficult to notice. That's compounded by the fact that he edits from a DSL line in London. I could never reasonably attribute an individual anonymous edit from a London DSL line to an article about Lady Gaga to him without psychic powers. Show me an account that did a bunch of stupid edits to get autoconfirmed and then proceeded to edit Lady Gaga songwriting credits and F1 standings, and I know that it's him. Further, the contribution list for the account gives me a handy grouping of all of his edits so that after blocking him, I can undo each and every edit he made in a matter of minutes.

That's the basis of my strategy with recurring puppeteers. By keeping articles they are highly interested in semi-protected, the puppeteer is forced to confirm an account. Once he confirms an account, his editing pattern becomes detectable, and he can be dealt with. These tend to be compulsive people: whatever edit they are trying to make is very important to them, and they will return to it time after time in order to make it. I semi-protect the articles they edit for one to three months (depending on how persistent the sockpuppeteer is), they create an account, autoconfirm it, edit, I block and revert all of the edits the account made. Most eventually give up. Even Brexx seems to have nearly stopped (or sufficiently matured that I can no longer detect his edits, which is effectively the same thing). With Brexx, it got pretty silly, since he was so persistent over a wide range of articles. For most socks, it only requires semi-protection of a couple dozen articles.

Basically, that's why the argument "semi-protection is worthless against socks, all they have to do is auto-confirm" isn't a very strong argument. It's true enough if you only look at whether the puppeteer could initially make the edit, but that isn't the right place to measure. If I'm able to undo all of the sock's edits shortly after they have been made, that's nearly as good as if they had never been made at all. Semi-protection allows me to do that. There are certainly ways to get past me, but discussing them in detail has problems with WP:BEANS. Fortunately, the bulk of puppeteers aren't bright enough to figure them out on their own.—Kww(talk) 15:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kww, thanks for your comments above; it provides an excellent overview of a particular method of addressing what I'd call "serial editors". I'm going to resist my urge to have a philosophical discussion on what might be considered the "social construct" vs "utilitarian" methods of addressing such users; instead I will clarify that my comments above were not intended in any way to criticise your process in identifying and neutralizing such accounts.

In fact, you were not by any stretch of the imagination the only administrator who objected to articles being included in the pending changes trial for this reason; there were several others, but you were just the only one who posted on my page about it. I recognise that there are differing philosophies on how to best address socks, and it seemed to me that it was a potential hornet's nest that did not need to be stirred up for what was supposed to be a two-month trial, particularly one with a tool that several of us realised almost immediately needed some serious modification in order to possibly be useful for articles where these serial accounts tend to show up. I think that a "reviewer information" infobox on the reviewer page, where admins could write a couple of sentences explaining the reason for PC and telling reviewers what to watch for, would have the potential of expanding the ability to identify these editors, and get more eyes watching for the problems; however, it doesn't look like that is even getting serious consideration for the next "trial" version of the software as far as I can see, according to mw:Pending Changes enwiki trial/Roadmap. Ah well.

I'm pretty tied up with real world and Arbcom obligations in the next few weeks, but I think it might be a good exercise at some point to have a broader discussion, hopefully involving several others who have dealt with socks and serial editors, to see if it would be possible to flesh out a wider range of methods to address both the negative social aspects of these accounts and the utilitarian aspects of content over contributor. I have a feeling we would all learn something from such a discussion, if we all proceed with lots of respect for each other's points of view, and a willingness to recognise that different approaches fit different situations. (The process you've described above, for example, sounds absolutely perfect for catching "sneaky" vandalism, and as I recall, at least one of the sockers you follow does just that.) Thanks again for commenting here. I apologise for having given the impression that you and other administrators who have been using semi-protection of articles to address socking are doing something wrong. While it had a noticeable effect on the number of articles available to be put into the pending changes trial, it is in keeping with current protection processes, and I can definitely see its appropriateness in certain situations. Risker (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor users

I just came across a user claiming to be a 13-year-old and my steel-trap memory hazily recalled you telling me someone regularly goes through to remove that sort of mention on the user's page. Is the talk page deleted? Or is just the mention of age deleted? Should I just email you his name and stop trying to be useful in any admin capacity? --Moni3 (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Moni3 - delete the versions of the page where the editor claims to be a minor and email the diffs to User:Oversight, which links to the Oversighter queue on OTRS - that way the first available operator oversighter will suppress the edits. You can leave a message for the user with the {{subst:User:Alison/c}} template on his/her talk page. Thanks for your watchful eyes. :-) Risker (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Should I also delete the actual mention of his age? Because...it's still there. --Moni3 (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Erm, yes... :-) Risker (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Action failed. I'm taking that personally. Aaaand now I'm gonna email you because I might have broken something. --Moni3 (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You did fine, Moni3; step one is accepting that there is a problem. :P I've received your email and done the suppressions. And just to give a quiet round of applause here, DragonflySixtyseven finds many similar pages when he is doing new page patrol and passes them off to oversighters to address. I have a feeling he just hadn't got as far as this user before you found him. :-) Risker (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Count Iblis's advocacy block

Hi Risker. Count Iblis has been blocked for advocating for Brews even though the advocacy sanctions expired in July. I would appreciate your attention in this matter. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is in the process of being corrected. Please do not be too hard on Wgfinley; the sanctions page for that case is pretty much a disaster area, and Count Iblis appears to be conducting himself in a manner very similar to that which led to his previous sanctions—something he might want to consider. Risker (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice and the information. As far as being hard on Wgfinley this was my concluding (and only) comment on ANI [13]. I hope you'll agree it is not too hard on Wgfinley. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Risker, I would pose you a question. While I understand my own role in being banned and how I'm not always civil etc. I'd ask what you mean about Iblis being disruptive leading to another ban possibly. Can you point out what is problematic about his edits? This is of concern because you speak as if it's crystal clear and I don't get that at all. Not trying to be argumentative just trying to understand your viewpoint. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess again I have to note the refusal to discuss and show what is problematic about the edits in question. This is exetremely disappointing. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not refusing to discuss, simply busy in other areas for what little time I was available yesterday. Both of you are repeating the advocacy behaviours that led to your previous sanctions. If you cannot refrain from doing so, then you will indeed find yourself back in the same boat. Risker (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? What has been disruptive about our comments? That's the one thing no one is willing to answer. I've not broken any policies nor has Iblis. Perhaps if you are too busy in other areas these vague references to non existant disruption should stop...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Count Iblis directly refers to himself as Brews' advocate in the recent arbitration enforcement request, and states clearly that he is acting on Brews' behalf, is precisely the type of advocacy that the prior sanctions were intended to address. Many administrators would consider it meatpuppetry, which is against policy. The fact that neither of you see this as inappropriate is a major part of the problem. I'll have no further comment on this. Risker (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

RFAR title

The issue of the RFAR title was open. SlimVirgin is not a clerk, AIUI, and therefore her change of the title was something notably out of order. I simply made a note of her action. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 05:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the only person for whom the title of the RFAR was in question was you, Stevertigo; nobody else had a problem with it. It was inappropriate for you to be copy-pasting SlimVirgin's edit summary, when she appropriately reverted your change, and then "signing" her name to it. Risker (talk) 06:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Reminder to self

Nominate Relations between Zionism and Nazism (Doctoral Thesis) as a POV fork from Mahmoud Abbas. Yes, the author is notable, but his thesis is not, and is appropriately covered already in the main article about the author. Risker (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Reminder to Risker, stop talking to yourself, people think it's weird. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Aww, but Neutralhomer, sometimes that's the best conversation I'll have all day!  ;-) Risker (talk) 07:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That is very true, cause only you agree with yourself. :) People always ask me "why do you talk to yourself?" and I answer "cause my opinion is the only one I trust". :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, done. May well have been the only thing I actually accomplished today. :-) Risker (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with the POV fork. Markowitz is a tenious debator who seldom concedes a point.

I'm a little surprised that he would push this particular point as it seems blatantly obvious that WP articles covering 20 year dissertations from notable politicians are pretty rare. NickCT (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Mike Cejka

HI Risker. I see that after a two-month lull, the trivia that was a source of much disruptive editing by a multi IP user has reared its ugly head again. Perhaps we should consider semi-protecting this page for a while. --Kudpung (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, given that his position has also been supported by autoconfirmed editors (for example, someone fixed the links in that section rather than deleting it, and had been inserting it in the past), I don't think semi-protection is going to do a lot of good. I've kept it on my watchlist for just this reason, although I confess I missed the original insertion. Risker (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI heads up

Hi. :) Somebody you blocked in July popped up via sock to object at ANI, in section titled Hrotovice was blocked by Arbitrator Risker without a valid explanation. I've blocked the sock and left a note on how to appeal at the original user talk, but I figured you might like to know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Moonriddengirl. This is indeed a serial socking editor who creates disruption all over the place, and was easily recognized by several checkusers. I just happened to be the one available to do the block. Risker (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

85.210.96.0/20 rangeblock

I just blocked them for a few hours for a harrassment campaign; I noted after doing so that you'd CU blocked them in July for disruption and vandalism. I don't know what case that's about, obviously, but if the wider case is back you may want to review it... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, GWH. I've given the heads up to another checkuser on where to look, since in theory I am supposed to be earning my mortgage money right now. :-) Risker (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Hello, Risker. You have new messages at Mattnad's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rights on prototype.wikimedia.org/flaggedrevs

Hi Risker, you've got full rights on http://prototype.wikimedia.org/flaggedrevs now. I also responded to your comment on mediawiki.org. -- RobLa-WMF (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks RobLa-WMF. I'll be over there later in the weekend, I've got to wear the arbitrator hat tonight and probably tomorrow as well, but this is definitely in my target. I don't suppose you could arrange to get a good whack of articles loaded up on there so that all aspects of the tool can be tested by a range of editors? Okay, maybe not 10K all at once, but at least several hundred to start, of varying length and complexity. Featured and good articles, especially those with lots of wiki-code, templates and images, would be particularly useful, since one of the problems to be solved is how to fix the "loading big pages" issue. Risker (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Note to talk page watchers: I encourage all of you to participate in the testing of the Pending Changes software over on this new test wiki - whether you're a technical incompetent like me, or you can write MediaWiki code in your sleep; having test users with a wide range of experience and expertise makes a really big difference for *any* software. Oh, and you can have multiple accounts to test editor, reviewer and admin tools - no sockpuppetry policy there. :-) I'll make a point of mentioning on this page when they have installed updates so that you can see what has changed and give feedback (and feedback means saying what's wrong with it, not just "it sucks". Does the page take too long to load? Was it clear what your options were? Was your action successful? Did the fix actually fix the problem?)

  The only way that we can actually see whether or not this software is suitable for use on this project is to properly put it through its paces, figure out both the technical problems (so the developers can try to solve them) and the community issues (so we can see if there is some kind of consensus), and resolve these issues one by one...or be certain that they're unresolvable. I don't know whether or not pending changes are a workable or useful idea for this project, but I am certain that until we work through this issue, together, as a community, it's going to be like a burr under our collective saddle. Risker (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD results

Risker, it is nice to meet you personally on your talk page. Thank you for investing your time into this. I had my doubts at first, though agree sources are overwhelming. Tthe attention and review only improved the article, so the procedure was positive if you ask me. Thank you for your kind words, hope the article will remain on your watch list. More eyeballs definitely better. Stay well. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I am very glad to hear that you feel that way, AgadaUrbanit; it was very good to collaborate with you and with Markovitz to improve this article, and it was especially good to see both of you rising to the occasion by seeking to attain the high standards that the project expects for a contentious topic. There is still work to do, and I'll try to get back to the article soon to help out some more; however, I have a few other responsibilities I need to attend to. I have to admit that I found it quite funny when, after FT2 had closed the AfD, another administrator whom I'd messaged earlier said he wouldn't have done it; turns out none of us could find any particular rule about withdrawing AfD nominations. Risker (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Idea for you

I read in a mainstream (not right of centre) newspaper today that there are paid bloggers that are trained and paid to steer discussion to one political side. The AC and all editors and administrators should be mindful of this. In fact, everyone should be mindful of this. So perceived concensus can be manipulated. Wikipedia should make a new effort to strive for the neutral perspective and even get it into the Wikipedia lexicon and culture. Consensus should remain a goal but neutral perspective should be a higher goal. Neutral perspective cannot be manipulated by paid bloggers but consensus can be manipulated. Wikipedia must not be manipulated!

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		I wasn't sure which barnstar to choose, but this said "may be awarded to those editors who have shown to be a person of integrity and honor. Or, more simply, a stand-up guy/gal" - seems to fit the bill. You have helped me enormously over a long period of time, with my sporadic requests, and even my need to vent. You're an asset to Wiki?edia, and I suspect some of your behind the scenes actions, which are critical to the project, go unrecognized. Well - I wanted to show that some people notice. I am very grateful for your thoughtful advice, based on enormous experience. Common sense is all too rare, but you have it in abundance.  Chzz  ►  02:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Draft?

Regarding this comment[14]. I'm perfectly willing to submit to a (in- or)voluntary ban from biographical articles. Will you draft the proposal? My suggestion is for a "editing biographies broadly construed, as well as commenting on talk-pages of biographies broadly construed as well as sanction boards or other boards where biographical articles are discussed." - i'll leave the time-period up to you. BLP is (imho) a poor choice of words since that policy encompasses all articles, and isn't limited to biographies. If you want to formalize my (purely voluntary) 1RR in the topic-space as well, then i'm just as game.

Please keep in mind that i have actually never been sanctioned or blocked for anything (topic-space or outside) at all during my period on Wikipedia, and have tried as hard as i could to take criticism to heart, so i do find this a bit unfair - but i am willing to do just about anything to ensure some peace in the area... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kim - not ignoring you, just very busy IRL this weekend, and trying to cover backlogged tasks while thinking about your question. Take a look at the proposal that Scjessey has drawn up, which seems to be getting good support, and that might be a good direction to move in. Your suggestions are also a good idea too. Risker (talk) 06:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that i'd be the right person to draft such a thing. Mainly because i'd be far from disinterested. I'm well aware that you are busy, and i'm not trying to rush anything :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you forgotten about this one? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Especially considering this[15]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If I may jump in here, Kim I recommend that you quickly take the wording ScJessey's voluntary commitment, read it and ensure you agree with it, strike his username and insert your own, and submit it pronto to the talk page of the arbitration proposed decision. No special drafting skills, or unique objectivity, are required. You're an editor in good standing and have never been sanctioned before so it would be taken seriously. --TS 21:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I was actually thinking more about something like this, since it seems that biographic content is the major problem that people have complained about:

Will for one year voluntarily abstain from editing or commenting on biographical articles broadly construed, as well as noticeboards or other forums where biographical content is discussed (BLP/N;sanction boards). Furthermore in aspiration of limiting the battlefield atmosphere, will extend his voluntary ban on articles, talk-pages and other boards related to CC broadly construed, started Aug 5, to six months, and after that keep to 1RR, not excempted for BLP violations, but excempted vandalism for a further 6 months.

This would give the following expiries: Bio: Arb decision + 1 year; Topic: Jan 5, 2011; 1RR: Jun 5, 2011. (chances are that i'll continue the 1RR forever) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC) [Nb: its deliberate that i haven't put CC on the biography part - since if i can't be entrusted within the CC area for biographies, then that most certainly extends to all such --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)]

Password Reset

I got an email today saying

Someone from the IP address 90.206.107.237 requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia.

The new password for the user account "Sophie" is "*******". You can now log in to Wikipedia using that password.

If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you.

think someone might be trying to hack into my account. the ip doesnt have any pages here or any contribs and the host is

5ace6bed.bb.sky.com

thx :) Sophie ^(Talk) 13:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You can safely ignore such messages, as it says in the email. Aiken (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

ok :) Sophie ^(Talk) 10:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Risker. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification.
Message added 18:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi there. Please advise what request you are referring to, and whose statement. A diff would be nice. I won't be in a position to focus my attention on this for at least four hours, perhaps not even this evening depending on other factors. Risker (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the Speed of Light amendment. I have ocnsidered your viewpoint about the meatpuppetry issue and I can see that one rather easily as being problematic in nature. I was hoping to illicit a further response if you are able as to other behaviors you see as problematic from a recent standpoint. I'm trying to practice a new tact in my disagreements, or misunderstandings. I'm assuming your arguments are well reasoned and I want to see things in your view, that way with a full understanding of your viewpoint it might change my own. Sorry to bug. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Email

I replied towards your email, you have alot of oversighting to do. Secret ^account 03:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Secret. Some has already been done, if you need to send me any links by email, please feel free. I think I know where much of it is. :-) Risker (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I send you some links though email, right now, you have a skype account so we could chat, I have an hour of free time (I lost my gmail password as that got hacked as well). Secret ^account 03:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Got them all. Unfortunately, as I have to be up at 5:30 tomorrow, I'm about to crawl in to bed. I will try to arrange to be around tomorrow evening. Risker (talk) 03:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(Heading switched as it is messing up my page)

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Sockpuppetry_in_the_Climate_Change_topic_area I have posted a direct and simple question for arbitors to verify. I believe the finding of fact referenced may materially mistake facts (writing "accounts" when it actually means "the effect of year old rangeblocks"). It would be nice if you could verify the wording of this proposed, currently passing, finding of fact. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry not to post here sooner, I have (as you no doubt know) modified the FOF. Risker (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy 10/10/10

Double Ten Day is, really, unrelated—but we don't appear to have a cool pic for this one

I suppose I should've timed this message at 10:10:10 too, but frankly, I can't be arsed. You know how it is.

Did you know... that tenten in Japaense writing are a little wiggly thing, a bit like a quotation-mark, which makes e.g. "ka" (か) into "ga" (が) or "fu" (ふ) into "bu" (ぶ) ?

So, take time out to have a bit of a giggle.

All the best, and 10-10 'till we do it again.  Chzz  ►  08:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Chzz! :-) Risker (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read and respond

You have voted on a finding against me. Please read and respond to this section and explain to me why my warnings directed at these admins were out-of-line. Thank you. ATren (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have expanded my evidence in that section. I believe my complaints against at least 3 admins (representing 5 diffs in my finding -- nearly half) had merit. And for the most part, I presented those concerns in a civil, impersonal tone. Given the evidence I've presented there, which establish the context of my complaints, I would like to know why my complaints were unwarranted. Please read and respond there. Thanks. ATren (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Risker: I've substantially responded on my talk page. It might be better to respond there, if you are minded to respond, to keep this somewhat centralised.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Roger, responded on your talk page. Risker (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I agree completely that it is best to get a user to remove a personal attack, rather than to revert them and get into a mess. Jehochman ^Talk 23:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice to know we are on the same page here. Needless to say, I am watching closely. Risker (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

still concerned

I'm still concerned that it's been credibly alleged that an editor and an arbcom clerk outed two editors by releasing privileged information (that non-CUs obtained just how?), and that evidence has been offered that supports the allegation is in arbcom's hands? Further, that the outing was specifically for the purpose of facilitating real world harassment of these editors. I find this of great concern. Jack Merridew 02:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Jack, you are not at arms length on this one, and you too are bringing an off-wiki battle onto the project, one that is severe enough that another editor had to be blocked under WP:NLT. The allegations are unsubstantiated. I strongly urge you to step away from pursuing the battles of other people, in which you have absolutely no involvement, based only on what information they have chosen to share with you. Risker (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the off-wiki stuff is, is no concern of mine. I see on-wiki stuff that is alarming, to me. The diff I saw was removed. I hear your warning, and will shut up. Jack Merridew 02:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

email

Risker, please respond to your email. ATren (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I told you in your first email that I would not be responding further. I will simply, right here, point out that you are basing your assumptions on incomplete and one-sided information, and due to privacy concerns and WMF/WP policies, I am not in a position to refute them, so I am not going to try. Risker (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, then I will keep seeking answers until I find them. ATren (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone who has all of the information will be willing to share it with you, given certain off-wiki activities that have taken place, let alone the WMF/WP privacy policies and expectations; to be honest, I don't think anyone who knows all the information *could* share it without a serious policy/privacy breach. You might want to ask yourself why *you* are being prompted to seek out this information. Risker (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

ATren, please stop emailing me. Your completely erroneous understanding of what has happened is very sad, but I'm not going to be breaking privacy policy to correct you. I suppose it's never occurred that...well, no. It's obvious you haven't. Just stop. Risker (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

He's been duly warned : User_talk:ATren#Warning — Rlevse • Talk • 01:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Small request

In your vote at 25.1, please change "Noroton" to "JohnWBarber". I'd appreciate it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, sorry for missing that. I guess I had the old account name on my mind. Risker (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your comments, and I'm regarding all of the arbitrators' comments as sincere, useful criticism. At the same time, I remain absolutely appalled in just the ways I've explained on the P.D. talk page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Essay in progress / Basic precautions for new editors

Hi Risker -- I recall you once wrote a great essay partly relating to issues or precautions that should perhaps be considered by editors. For my part, I've often thought more generally about simple points that could help new users, as they get started, to avoid mistakes that they might later regret. I just put something together here, so I wonder if you (or anyone else who is interested) would like to check it out. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 00:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a good start, Mackan79. I'll try to post over there in a bit, but as my computer is acting weird right now I'm just going to stick to this one page in case things get messed up. :-) I'd suggest a little more emphasis on the ways in which people can be identified; for example, editing a subject with which they are associated (either by the same or a different identity) off-wiki, using the same username as used elsewhere. Please stress that if they have a reason to have concerns about their personal safety, editing on a top-10 website is more likely to raise their web profile than to lower it. I'd suggest also some further discussion about accountability - that editors are personally responsible for their writings, and that hitting the "save" button is a public act in which their words are published.

It would probably be an idea to add something about conflicts of interest or agenda-driven editing; oddly enough, I was thinking about writing something along this line earlier today. I'll admit I probably see more of the "dark side" than many others, but it distresses me a great deal to realise how many editors aren't just writing about things they're knowledgeable about or have an interest in (heck, that's most of us!)...but coming here and often using this project to promote positions that bring them personal benefit. It's a tough one to strike the right balance, particularly as my impression is that many who do this think they're actually doing things the "Wikipedia way", and that either (a) they don't have a COI or (b) if they do, nobody will ever know about it. Ah, but I'm waxing philosophical, and heaven knows if there's any point. I think what's on the BBC live feed right now is probably far, far more important. Risker (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, those are some interesting ideas I hadn't thought of. I'll have to see if I can round it out to cover a broader perspective to where it might be useful. Mackan79 (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada

We would love it if you were interested in joining us.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Skype! Skype!

[16] Philip Trueman (talk) 05:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it took me the longest time to figure out what you were talking about there; I thought you wanted to call me! Please be a little more explicit when (correctly) chiding me for a problem edit. Even more charming would be your fixing the problem edit and then chiding me. ;-) Thanks for catching it, though. Risker (talk) 05:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. I caught it because it showed up in my anti-vandal tool, but I was kinda reluctant to hit the rollback link on a sysop. Philip Trueman (talk) 05:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Philip; I can understand your caution, although does the anti-vandalism tool you use not allow you to undo and/or make a corrective edit? (I don't know, I do all my edits by hand.) The silliest part of this whole thing was that I was fixing vandalism...and made a mess. Now I'm trying to figure out how long that extension had been in place, since I've not run into this problem before. Risker (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem has been around for months - you're far from being the only one. The tool I use is PILT, my own version of Lupin's (now rather dated) AVT. It has a link to rollback, but for more complex reversions I use popups, and for more delicate changes I go in and edit (possibly an older version) in the ordinary way. The problem with doing that, of course, is that it takes so much more time that could be spent reverting other vandalism. Philip Trueman (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

For you

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For working way too hard at every hour of the night and never giving up. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could come up with something more original... but I can't. Still, you deserve it. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Aww, thank you, Shirik! I'll let you in on a secret...the reason I am up at this hour is that I had to reprogram my phone, and it takes forever! Smartphone my eye. ;-) Risker (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The article Grace Sherwood is scheduled to appear as the main page featured article in the near future

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on October 31, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 31, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 23:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

100px|Statue of Grace Sherwood, the Witch of Pungo.

Grace Sherwood was a healer, midwife, and farmer from Princess Anne County and Pungo, Virginia. Sherwood's neighbors claimed that she ruined crops, killed livestock, and conjured storms. She was tried for witchcraft several times, the first in 1697 when she was accused of casting a spell on a bull, resulting in its death. The following year she was charged again, for bewitching the hogs and cotton crop belonging to one of her neighbors. Her final trial took place in 1706, when she was accused of bewitching Elizabeth Hill, causing Hill to miscarry. The court ordered that Sherwood's guilt or innocence should be determined by ducking her in water. If the water rejected her and she floated, then she was guilty; if the water accepted her and she drowned, then she was innocent. Sherwood floated to the surface, and subsequently spent up to seven years and nine months in the jail next to Lynnhaven Parish Church. She was free by 1714 and succeeded in recovering her property from Princess Anne County, after which she lived quietly until her death in 1740 at the age of 80. (more...)

Yea, we made it! Rather than trying to keep up with the vandalism during TFA, I just do a diff on the before and after versions, keep the good, and chuck the bad. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi :)

• I left a reply to your note. Sincere regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 18:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Answered there. Risker (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hello Risker, I was wondering if you could look at my request on http://prototype.wikimedia.org/flaggedrevs/Talk:Main_Page please. Thanks, --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Done for both you and Mono. Risker (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It worked for Mono, but it didn't work on my account. http://prototype.wikimedia.org/flaggedrevs-w/index.php?title=Special:UserRights&user=Alpha+Quadrant Thanks, --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Odd, I am sure I got a "done" message. I've just tried again, please check. Sorry for the inconvenience. Risker (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it works now. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank goodness! I guess that ruins my chances of ever becoming a 'crat here though. ;-) Risker (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Cmagha

I was informed that you ran a CU previously on the accounts reported in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cmagha. Following my blocks based on the CU results there, Cmagha emailed me claiming that they have validated their (separate) identities to you. Could you confirm that? (Feel free to unblock without checking with me further if they are different people.) T. Canens (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to unblock? Even if they are different people this is a clear case of meatpuppetry and the result should still be a permanent ban. Please don't supercede the propper process.4meter4 (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me. What I see is a bunch of new users collaborating on an article in which they have an interest, and trying to learn the (ridiculously complex) rules around here. I'll point out that this is exactly how thousands and thousands of our current editorial cadre came to Wikipedia - almost all of them good users. Instead of biting the newbies, how about welcoming them, helping them to learn the ropes, enticing them to participate in other articles they may find interesting? If this was about a truly problematic BLP-violating, POV article, you might have a bit of a point; but for heaven's sake we are talking about The Irving Literary Society - which I see is now back up for deletion after having just been resuscitated through DRV. Really now. And they call me a deletionist... Risker (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

T.Canens, I have done the checkuser, and I have also received the email messages, which are buried in my inbox; however, given the situation I will do my best to address this in the next 48 hours. I haven't looked at the SPI in depth, but I recognized several of those names immediately, and they were definitely different users, several of whom edit from vastly different locales. Risker (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• And now I have communicated with Tnxman307, provided him with the information I had in hand, and will leave the SPI results to him. He had valid reason for his interpretation; however, there is more to this situation than meets the eye. In the interim, if any TPW is motivated, I think more independent opinions on the AfD for The Irving Literary Society would be useful; for obvious reasons, I'm staying off that article. Risker (talk) 06:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Risker, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:Risker. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, geez, DASHbot, it wasn't considered non-free when it was put there. Hope you had a grand time there. ;-) Risker (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

info

I thought I did erase it. Thanks for the reminder. sorry. Joseph507357 (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I hope you'll find it a bit comforting to know that others are looking out for you. It seems you're doing great learning the ropes here. :-) Risker (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. At least its not like another wiki I was a part of, wikimapia. Everyone hated me there. Joseph507357 (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain

What was the reason for blocking 205.175.113.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? The only edit that I can see was rather helpful. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The editor behind the IP has been banned from Wikipedia for several years. In the interest of WP:DENY I will not be linking to his username. If you really need to know, email me. Risker (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunate drama

This drama is unfortunate with Rlevse leaving and such, I had to place the article in FAR, in order to stop some of the drama, maybe you could rewrite the copyrighted sections or something. I would do it myself but it's not my specialty, and I don't know how to properly rewrite it without using that material. Secret ^account 04:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate you notifying me of this, I think it would be a spectacularly bad idea for me to rewrite this article. The fact that one of Wikipedia's best copy editors could not come up with a better way to express many of these (well-sourced) facts tells me it's very unlikely I'm going to do any better. Again, thanks for letting me know. Risker (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I could easily have headed this off at the pass when it popped up last night, bar the article history problem, so I don't take kindly to having the blame for this blown in my direction. Malleus Fatuorum 04:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll be willing to rewrite the article if anything, but right now it does look like a lost cause. Secret ^account 04:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No, no, Malleus, I am not blaming you, not at all. I don't think, with the current perspective that anything that comes after a copyvio is a "derivative work", that anyone can fix this one. Not you (whom I respect as one of the best copy editors on the project), not me, not anyone. Frankly, I think the article should be deleted rather than pawed over any further, and if someone wants to start all over then that's what should be done. Risker (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Some bad images on commons

Hiya risker :)

i was on commons when i found images on commons what might not be allowed on the internet as i think i would get in trouble if i saved them on my computer

can you make sure that they are deleted please

thanks :)

Sophie ^(Talk) 00:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(Talk page stalkers: sorry but you can't help with this thing mainly cause i think that risker would be best at explaining it to me (as women generally know how to speak to kids so they understand them :) ))

Hi Sophie - I have no permissions to remove images at Commons (my admin permissions are strictly at Wikipedia), but if you contact User:Alison by clicking "email this user" and leaving a note on her talk page that you've done so, or email commons@wikimedia.org and ask for a female administrator to contact you, then one of them may be able to help. Risker (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hiya :) I asked in IRC if she was on a few days ago and some people in there said I was sexist for asking a female admin but then she emailed me a few days ago so Iv replied back :) Sophie ^(Talk) 13:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

One may need many years of life experience to see the irony in guys accusing women of being sexist... In any case, I am glad this is getting sorted. Risker (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

yea :(, anyway, you have mail :D well...the arbcom thingy does :) Sophie ^(Talk) 11:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Re [17], could I ask you to join the discussion at WT:Plagiarism? If we have a guideline that criminalises the behaviour of a large percentage of our contributors, then either the guideline, or the behaviour, or both, have to change. Any of these require broad input. --JN466 03:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I would be very happy to add something there; it doesn't look like I will have a chance to do so until late this evening, but I'll include this in my priorities. I do genuinely think that a narrow group of people, out of touch with the actual practices within the project, have not given full thought to what their unrealistic expectations mean to the project. Almost every article I read could, under readings of various projects, be considered a copyvio, loaded with plagiarism, or have closely paraphrased sections. And almost nobody reviews the full history of articles before they edit them. On the other hand, this might be the excuse people have been looking for to get rid of masses of biographical articles - not that I am advocating that, but this particular area seems to be rife with issues. Risker (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Userpage

I presume the worst happened, sorry for your lost. Secret ^account 17:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No, nothing bad has happened to me or to my family; I'm just swamped at work. November 11 is Remembrance Day here in Canada, and is also observed in many other countries under different names. I have had a longstanding and abiding respect for the men and women of the armed forces who were called upon in this and other wars.

The red poppy is the symbol of respect for veterans here in Canada - every Canadian presenter will wear one on his or her lapel for the first 11 days of November, and millions of Canadians from all walks of life sport them as well. (I have two, one on my outdoor jacket and the other on my suit jacket.) The poem "In Flanders Fields" is taught to just about every Canadian school child, and some of the most moving Remembrance Day ceremonies I have attended have involved the group recitation of this very moving poem at war cenotaphs, civic ceremonies, and one time even a hockey game. (I will leave it to you to imagine the emotional impact of hearing 25,000 people recite this poem in unison. My heart stirs just with the memory.)

Thanks very much for your concern, Secret. I'm glad to say that there's no personal tragedy keeping me away from the project. Risker (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I see I'm not Canadian so I didn't understand your comment. Thanks Secret ^account 19:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

"return to usual programming"

This is Wikipedia, so anything around here would be a "return to unusual programming". :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrators and advanced permissions

Hullo Risker. Just wondering if you could have a quick look at the discussion here. I think I recall you saying at one point that arbitrators were cleared for Checkuser and Oversight by default. I wonder if I remember accurately and if so, how that squares with the distinction Coren is proffering. Cheers, Skomorokh 13:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		I think you know why I'm giving this to you without me having to say it. Thank you for convincing me that driving myself insane is not a prudent course of action. Sven Manguard Talk 04:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Sven. Glad I was able to help. :-) Risker (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Your FAQ_for_Arbcom_Candidates

Hi Risker, I noticed a typo: "if new arbitrators wishes to participate". Thanks for this page. We'll highlight it in the soon-to-be-published Signpost report. Tony (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for catching that, Tony. All fixed! Risker (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the FAQ, Risker. It wasn't really anything I didn't expect, but it's nice to have concrete numbers! One little thing: you write, "...we will work with successful candidates to get everyone through the identification process, set up email accounts, and work through some of the practicalities"—we're not talking new accounts, just subscriptions? Or, if I was elected, I would need another email address in addition to my dedicated wiki one? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether you want to create a new email account is strictly up to you, David. Some new arbitrators have chosen to do so (Steve Smith did last year), and others don't (like me - I prefer to keep all my wiki-related emails in one place). Other practicalities might include things like being away at the time of the transition (it's the holiday season, after all), sorting out "buddies" for those who want to learn checkuser and oversight skills, and specifically identifying which mailing lists people want to subscribe to. There's also likely to be a bit of discussion on who is interested in participating in AUSC and BASC at the beginning of the term. Hope that helps. Risker (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop presuming to speak for me

Please don't put words in my mouth again. It is exceptionally rude. I did not say people should pay a few hundred quid to a lawyer. I said, if people don't want to identify to WMF, the should be able to go to a lawyer instead, if they wish. Jehochman ^Talk 23:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't actually see what you wrote as suggesting an alternative, but instead the preferred method in which to proceed; however, as you dispute my interpretation of what you have said, I will modify my comment. And yes, I believe it would cost a fair chunk of change to go that route; lawyers cannot accept a client without there being some sort of fiduciary agreement between the client and themselves. Ironically, it is the candidates who have sufficient financial wherewithal to have a relationship with a lawyer who would most likely be able to obtain such services for a token fee, rather than for regular billing rates. Remember that the lawyer would still have to provide the name and date of birth of the candidate; simply saying "I know who this is and how old he is, and he meets your criteria" does not meet the WMF criteria. Risker (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Some editors have a lawyer already; probably anybody who has kids does. My lawyer would do something like this, for a charitable purpose, gratis. It also takes away the objection, "I can't run because of the WMF identification requirement." Completely. If anybody wants to use this option and can't because of cost, I am sure we can find a law firm to take them on pro bono. How many arbitrators are elected per year? How many would choose this option? Total cost would be very little compared to other costs of our operations. Jehochman ^Talk 00:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll take your word that most middle class Americans have lawyers with whom they work closely enough that they'd be able to get pro bono coverage for something like that. I don't have a lawyer; there's the firm that notarized our wills and our powers of attorney many years ago, but that's the last time I was in there, and there's not a hope that they'd write a letter like that pro bono. Oddly, I do sort of agree with SlimVirgin that the identification process, no matter what happens or whatever changes may be made, will have to depend to a greater or lesser degree on AGF. One must remember that, for several years, there was only a very small group of people who had that access, and they largely knew each other, usually personally; that went by the by when WMF really started branching out and growing, and as new people partipated and more work needed to be done. Whatever proposal comes forward has to be able to accommodate the well-to-do and those on a tiny budget, the adult and the college student, the person from a large city and the one from a tiny hamlet, because it has to be something that could be applied to all projects in order for the WMF to include it in their policies. Risker (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Dwiakigle

Last year, you warned this user against adding infoboxes to articles, or tagging them as needing them, specifically featured articles. The user has recently come back from a relatively long absence and is again tagging and boxing. Not sure if it needs to be brought to the admin incident noticeboard, but as you warned him before you might think about doing so again before it needs to go any further. (I am not an admin and can't warn anyone.) --Hegvald (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, it seems another administrator (Iridescent) has observed what is going on and has asked him to stop. --Hegvald (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Hegvald. Not a surprise to me that he was asked to cease and desist. I must admit that it concerns me how often I see infoboxes in articles where the article is three or four sentences, and the infobox contains more information than the article itself. Of course, he was targeting featured articles in this particular case, all of which are specially crafted and should not have major undiscussed formatting changes. Risker (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

He is at it again! --Hegvald (talk) 09:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Neutralhomer wishes you a Happy Thanksgiving and hopes your day is full of good times, good food, good family, good football, a good parade and a good nap...then shopping tomorrow. :) Have a Great Day! :) Spread the joy of Thanksgiving by adding {{subst:HappyThanksgiving}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks very much! Our Canadian Thanksgiving is on the second Monday of October so I was way ahead of you in the turkey dinner, but it's nice to have such kind thoughts! Risker (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

OOops! :) Well, consider that a month late. :) LOL! Hope you had fun on your Thanksgiving too. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

oversight

Maybe this is for oversight. --Neo139 (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It was suppressible; however, it's just by luck that I'm logged in right now. In the future, it's best to email oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org or go to User:Oversight and use "email this user" so that the first available oversighter can respond, while also keeping the diff confidential. Thanks for letting me know! Risker (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! that was fast ^^ I will do that in the future. --Neo139 (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and the trust you have shown in me. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Question?

I was just wondering the reason for this. There is currently a discussion about it in #wikipedia-en-help ^connect and Sophie doesn't know why she has been blocked. Thank you, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 02:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Message to Sophie is clear enough, I think. Amalthea 02:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As per the block message, it's based on private information, so she'll need to contact ArbCom at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org Shell ^babelfish 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello. Can you please, as member of arbitration comity, read Talk:Kosovo#Kosovo article split and post your opinion? Threat is based on WP:ARBMAC, and we are trying the last step in normal dispute resolution, before requesting full arbitration. Please, read the post, at least to the line, and post your opinion. As this is lasting for years now, we need your help to end it nicely, and without sanctions and arbitration's. Once again, Please, we need your help. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

We are still eagerly waiting for your input. :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sophie block reason

Hi I would like to know what is the reason for blocking that user (as I am her friend), blocking policy says there must be a clear reason for block, private information does not sound much like a clear reason. Wikipedia has certain policies on blocks and if administrators and are not following them, regular users like me might be little bit confused by such unexplained actions, I believe administrators should follow wikipedia rules just like regular users, thank you for explaining this to me (and others). Petrb (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Sophie has been instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee (of which I am a member) with respect to the block. I would like to have User:Sophie's input before publicly discussing the block reason, as it involves private information. Risker (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

We're all in IRC trying to figure it out. There's a half dozen rather upset people there with her and she is claiming not to have a clue about why she was blocked. If you're around, msg me and I'll tell you the room where we're at. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This is being addressed directly with the blocked user. Please relax, folks. Risker (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You blocked Sophie's talk page, not sure why as she was not able to talk there - if that is the way how you are attempting us to stop us being able to talk about this I think you would really have to block us all, concerning your last message on her talk page, she messaged arbcom and got no response, I have nothing against you nor other people investigating this, but imagine you would be in very same situation, you blocked someone with no explanation (now little bit explained), that someone does not know the reason as well and has no way to defend herself, you say she is sock and you do not let her or us even talk about it? I really hope that this online encyclopedia (yes it is just encyclopedia I suppose administrators are here to keep it running not to act as CIA) is not ruled by admins who can control anything and can do anything they want just because they want. This really appear just like if someone went in conflict with her and makes some kind of revenge. I do not want to make another conflict I just want this to be logically explained (I am writing this little affected so I apologize if this message is looking like some kind of attack on you). Petrb (talk) 08:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The block is being discussed with the blocked user (and only the blocked user), and the block reason is clear. I understand that those of you who have exemplified the virtues of openness, good faith, being welcoming and enjoying camaraderie with fellow editors would find this situation to be disconcerting, even disturbing. The findings that led to the block were reviewed by at least six separate checkusers and/or arbitrators, and the non-private information involved in this decision had been identified by a significant number of other editors and administrators prior to or following the block. I really am sorry that this entire situation has had such a negative impact on you and your colleagues. Risker (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

IRC log from Sophie

This is response to what you said, it is log from channel where logging is allowed and Sophie gave me permission to post it

<log redacted>

SHE is you, as she has no way how to talk to you, please respond to her email. Petrb (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, this needs to stop Petrb. Risker and ARBCOM needs some time to get this sorted out with Sophie. It needs to be between her and them. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hi folks - it is my understanding that User:Sophie has received the explanation she has requested, and this matter should be completed now. Thank you, and thanks to the other editors who have also sent me personal messages with respect to this block, for your patience and your willingness to be open-minded in an unexpected situation. I've redacted the log because I think it's best practice not to post them onwiki even when the participants give permission; it's often like walking into a room in the middle of a conversation, in my opinion, but I know there was no harm intended. Best, Risker (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

YM Arbitration request

I wanted to take the opportunity to respond to the concern raised in your comment at the YM arbitration request, but -- given that I'm already flaunting the 500 word guideline there -- I thought I'd save that statement any additional pixels and just speak with you directly. Centrally, I disagree that the additional concerns were introduced "after the subject of the RFC started an apparent wikibreak". The first editor to introduce significant, organized allegation of long-term issues was Physchim62 (talk · contribs) at 12:25 23 November 2010.[18] By coincidence, that was about the time I wandered into the RFC to begin with (indeed, Physchim62's view was a significant factor in my decision to attempt analysis and get involved at all). I posted the first part of my view at 15:26 23 November 2010.[19] Neither of these RFC entries came after the end of YM's editing. Although the main account had not made any edits since much earlier in the day[20], YM was still active on his secondary account, YellowAssessmentMonkey (talk · contribs), including a series of edits to the RFC Talk page beginning at 19:54,[21] hours after the RFC began to consider a wider scope.

Of course, the RFC aside, these are by and large not new allegations at all. Concerns about policy issues have been raised on AN/I, at SPI (then Checkuser), at DRV, on his talk page, and at other venues throughout the time these actions have been ongoing. To most, there was never any response; when he did address the issues, it did not appear to be followed by significant changes in actions. I provided only limited diffs at RFAR and intend to show a more continuous history at Evidence if accepted. If you would prefer to see more of that history now, I would certainly be willing to do so.

I do, however, agree that the Committee has no need to open this case in an expedited fashion, although should no statement be forthcoming in some reasonable period of time (at your discretion), I would still urge examination of the issues (while previously unfamiliar with it, a quick look doesn't suggest that the deferred adjudication in the A Nobody case went very well). Serpent's Choice (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Civility

Thanks for keeping cool and remaining civil at User talk:Sophie and User_talk:Risker#Sophie_block_reason. I understand that you are under fire from quite a few editors for your rather vague actions on behalf of ArbCom (ostensibly). Hopefully we can resolve this peacefully and without misunderstanding. Guoguo12--Talk--  20:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, Guoguo12. Sometimes things can get complex, and it is often the innocent bystanders who find it most distressing. Risker (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Cookie

Shirik has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

In times like these, it's good to let you know we're all thankful for the work you do that nobody else wants to do. Thanks for your hard work! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Shirik, please accept my apologies for the delay in thanking you for this delicious cookie! It was just what I needed, after slaving over a hot keyboard this evening! Risker (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Recuse

Please recuse from the calculation and presentation of election results. The coordinators, scrutineers and vote counters can handle it. Jehochman ^Talk 19:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, Sandy's edit rendered a significant part of the table unreadable. If I wanted to read it (as I did), I had to fix it first. Now, given the fact that everyone and their brother has been editing that page, unless you're going to post messages like this on every single one of their talk pages insisting on recusal by every editor other than the "coordinators, scrutineers and vote counters", you've got no grounds to ask me to recuse either. If nobody other than "coordinators, scrutineers and vote counters" should be editing that page, please put the appropriate edit notice on and consider semi- or full protection. Perhaps more effective would have been the insistence that "coordinators, scrutineers and vote counters" had recused from any form of commentary or non-administrative participation with respect to the election, but it's a little late for that. Risker (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Holy cow, Jehochman, you reverted to this unreadable version of the page just because I am a current arbitrator? I think you've got some rethinking to do if this is the way you want to administrate elections. That's downright pitiful. Risker (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Risker is correct, requesting full page protection. Only the "coordinators, scrutineers and vote counters" (as Risker put it) should edit the page, not everyone. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected for 24 hours by User:SarekOfVulcan. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sophie

No comment, no opinion, just letting you know. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  23:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

“ And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God. ” — (Alma 7:10)

The Thing ^T/_C is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:TTTSNB/Merry_Christmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks very much for the Christmas wishes, I wish you and yours a blessed Christmas and healthy and joyous 2011. Risker (talk) 01:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Neutralhomer wishes you a Merry Christmas and hopes your day is full of the true spirit of the day. Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks so much for sharing the Christmas joy! I hope you and yours have enjoyed an excellent day, and have a happy and healthy 2011. Risker (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year!!!

And may you enjoy during the new year the same degree of fairness, kindness, objectivity, lack of bias, and intelligent concern that you lavished on me this year.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Giffords

So I removed all my edits, but four more sysops have edited subsequently. I suggest you let them know what's going on with the talkpage/full protection etc. Sometimes it's not that obvious.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, The Rambling Man. If I was technically competent enough, I'd create a giant edit notice saying "IF THIS IS FULLY PROTECTED, DISCUSS *ALL* EDITS ON THE TALK PAGE. THIS INCLUDES ALL ADMINISTRATORS, EVEN YOU" or words to that effect. Risker (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Now we have a number of other sysops editing, and Newyorkbrad calling for WP:IAR to make the page presentable (which I agree with, as it happens). So I think I'll WP:IAR and make the page better. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

At the moment I believe the protection has been downgraded to semi. Even were that not the case, I would authorize cosmetic and similar edits by administrators, though not potentially controversial ones, of course. This page is going to be viewed, over the next several hours, by tens of thousands of persons. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a very substantial portion of the edits made by administrators were not cosmetic or insignificant, and indeed I would go so far as to say we were facing an admin-only edit war on that page with respect to different admins deciding their source was better than other sources and changing the article. That this just kept continuing after the article was reprotected is completely unacceptable. If they're only cosmetic changes, then semi-protection is just fine. But to protect the article and then have administrators continuing the edit war that protection was supposed to stop is unacceptable. Risker (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well I'm glad my edits worth nothing but cosmetic and that I reverted them once warned. This is threatening to become Wikipedia's lamest "edit war" in months. Best wishes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the editing was problematic, and not at all what I had imagined when I fully protected page. I thought we would all discuss sources calmly on the talkpage until we came to a consensus that a bar had been reached. No such luck. But I admit I did edit that page once (in two edits) early on, to remove subsequently added claims that she'd died; I did this partly because they had no consensus on the talkpage and mainly because of the BLP concerns, which I do think is a factor to be considered in this event too when discussing editing through protection. --Slp1 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

if I have been pushing the boundaries

I post this at your page only for convenience, Risker, but it is addressed to the ArbCom in general. I had GWH at my page earlier telling me what he thinks of the recent thread and threatening me. Let me make very clear that if I do lose perspective and cross any unacceptable line in postings, I will obey the decisions of clerks on the matter (though of course I may protest or appeal). However I don't think I or anyone else in my position should have to fear threats from randomers; after all, who is to say what stake anyone who chooses to intervene has?! I tried very hard to keep my postings respectful, but yes I have felt the need to criticze ArbCom; but how else can interested users keep you guys on track? I hope I haven't done anything the Committee thinks is bad. Please remember the EEML has been by far the largest discovered conspiracy to subvert Wikipedia policies, and wasn't that long ago. If a few people have issues with lax treatment of those responsible for it, they are entitled to be heard. It doesn't deprive the Committe of the power to disregard such sentiment. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as ArbCom (at that time) is well aware, the vast bulk of EEML Emails had nothing to do with Wikipedia. And I'm not going to belabor the point that in my own regard, EEML did not affect my on-Wiki conduct in any way whatsoever. Deacon is free to dispute any edit I (or any other "EEML editor") made on-Wiki that he feels did not fairly and accurately represent reliable sources, or otherwise hold his peace. I did not sit out my topic ban for a year (for responses to canvassing I was not guilty of because I had posted based on my watch list before reading my Emails, but circumstantial timings being what they are...) to have an admin lobby for the privilege of permanently quoting personal correspondence to endlessly relitigate a conflict which is closed. I have no desire to be combative here. I can only trust that EEML is sealed and done, and that choosing to sit out my topic ban without appeal—demonstrating my contrition and good faith in hoping to move on from conflict upon my return—was the correct decision. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 06:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I am nobody's "meat". PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 06:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hold on, Deacon - are you confirming that you received the link to that specific photo via email from someone who identified the two individuals portrayed, without knowing context or veracity of the information you received, and you posted it onwiki? I had been of the impression that you'd somehow found it in the appropriate Wikimedia Commons category. This was remarkably poor judgment on your part, and an action that you'd likely have found unacceptable under other circumstances. In response to your post on my talk page, I think your desire to achieve a certain outcome is leading you to behave in ways that you yourself would find inappropriate in parallel circumstances. Indeed, several of your peers have already pointed this out to you, and I encourage you to take on board what they are saying. Risker

Risker, I am not trying to achieve any specific outcome, and if I were I wouldn't be criticizing the ArbCom the way I have. Piotrus will be out of his ban in two months anyway, and I don't contrary to popular myth actually even edit in the topic area. I am criticizing ArbCom for the sake of making it better. I am fairly well attuned to how these things go ... if NYB and others are already supporting something, I know well enough how seriously my views will be taken. But when it all goes up in flames again I can at least say I tried. Though each individual arb is important now, in the long term it is the community that is more important. Many people other than myself would like to know how cozy some arbs are with those they are entrusted with monitoring on behalf of the community. You are elected after all and the Wikipedia has a right to evaluate your judgment on these matters. They can only do so if there is proper disclosure (which we still await).

Re the picture, it was already posted on the Pittsburg meetup wiki page as far as I know, but you are right that I should have been more cautious; all I did was compare the pic to her own profile pic and was too distracted to give much thought to whether use of it would be an issue.

And lastly, I will evaluate if I have been crossing any lines, though in fairness to me the only user claiming to be uninvolved who had said anything in this respect was GWH. I have come to learn through observation and experience that in wiki-drama matters the line between involved/uninvolved is almost meaningless; generally if someone is giving one 'advice', it is probable there is some kind of involvement or stake even if it is not provable or worth stating. In that context the current process of relying on arb clerks is the best of all worlds. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

EEML thread on WT:A/R

Do you think it would be best for that thread to be closed now? AGK [•] 15:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, AGK. Thanks! Risker (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The thread-jacking by GWH and the EEMLers has left my final question unanswered. Why is unreliability an issue with quotes if, as you said, ArbCom still has access to the EEML archive? If someone quotes an email from in EEML list archive, surely ArbCom would verify it anyway, right? All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Deacon, you are far too knowledgeable a content editor not to know that it is incredibly simple to select quotes from a text that may give the appearance of meaning something entirely different than the author was actually conveying when the text is read in toto. Many good editors have even done this unintentionally, which is why there are often discussion page threads about "what X really meant". That's the key reason that, even before the project wanted references for almost everything, quotations had to be properly sourced. You must remember that not only Arbcom reads what is posted onwiki, and having to defend oneself from out-of-context quotes that may well have been appropriate responses to prior emails that are not quoted places the "accused" editor in an untenable position. Risker (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

In that respect such postings are like diffs, whose context is almost as unlikely to be investigated. Diffs too are usually presented with a narrative/interpretation provided by someone with a strong incentive to mislead; in most cases, it is not reasonable to expect a third party to reconstruct much context (due to the work involved), and such observers when they try are almost always unable to come up with an interpretation that is more credible or accurate. On this concern alone, the benefits of using such evidence in public outweigh this concern. If most Wikipedians can't read the archive, yet the content of it is relevant to a case, they will rely on those who can. And if those who can are permitted to be threatened or bullied into silence because of alleged NPA or AGF violation resulting from use, they are surely entitled to substantiate their claims publicly. The benefits of being able to quote from significantly outweigh loss of context here, esp. as the ultimate decision-makers are able to access the relevant context of such quotes very easily while those who need to defend themselves are as free to defend themselves as with diffs. I do though very much agree that quoting from it outside Arbitration or AE hearings should be banned, and I appreciate that ArbCom are acting against a background of privacy and copyright concerns too and may be taking a risk by explicitly authorizing quotes. This what I had thought was ArbCom's actual reason for not permitting it. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you seem to have difficulty seeing the difference between diffs of a fully accessible page history (which is easily resolved by simply looking at the entire conversation, which is also publicly accessible), and quotes from an archive that is not publicly accessible or does not meet our terms of use and licensing requirements. There is a certain irony in this discussion because I was on the hardliner side of this case. Risker (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a different argument though (which I even acknowledge), and it should be quite obvious that I do see the differences and similarities between diffs and email evidence. :) Anyway, I've given my thoughts and don't really want to press the matter too hard. Thanks for the explanation. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Deacon, the problem is unauthorized access to private correspondence. I have attempted to put it all behind, including my topic ban. You appear to be looking to re-engage in conflict, there is no other reason for your fixation on quoting personal correspondence from over a year ago. Please do not continue to advocate for committing privacy violations (I state what follows in manner which protects WP and prevents my advice here from being construed as a legal threat) of potentially questionable legality. The choice from here forward is yours, I've said all I'm going to say on-Wiki. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblocks

My mistake. This was a rangehopping vandal and I blocked for 12h originally, as you can see from the logs. When they started up again (and gave an assurance they wouldn't stop) I blocked for longer, on the basis I could undo them when the issue was sorted out. The issue was later sorted out, but I mistakenly thought I'd blocked them all for a week, not a month. I've gone back and unblocked them all now. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much, Black Kite. Risker (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Email

{{you've got mail}} Jujutacular ^talk 18:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Jujutacular; luckily I just logged on to my computer a few minutes before you sent that. Things are taken care of, and I'll respond to you directly via email as well, but only after I get some lunch. ;-) Risker (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation

I don't often get the opportunity to say this ;) but thanks for your really insightful commentary on Foundation-l today. You're "officially" invited to join at the new gendergap list, which is open and hopefully we will be a positive space to talk about welcoming women editors. It would be awesome if you could extend an invitation to people interested who might not normally be on Internal-l or Foundation-l. Cheers, Steven Walling at work 02:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Steven, although I hasten to add that my comment was on wiki-en-L (though I hear it's been passed around a bit since then). Fred Bauder has posted a link on wiki-en-L, which may attract some more project-specific interest, particularly amongst women editors. [Talk page watchers, here's your big chance to get in on the ground floor.] A lot of the issues that make women less likely to commit to Wikipedia are the same as those that affect new users generally (excess programming gobbledygook in the editing windows, bot-like messages, the feeling that one has walked into a longstanding conversation when posting on a talk page, no intuitive way to find help) - so I suspect that anything that makes editing more attractive to women will also be helpful to all new users. Risker (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Blerg, there I go confusing our mailing lists. :( Anyway, you're totally right about it being an issue intimately tied in with general new editor outreach. I think Kat Walsh (mindspillage) was suggesting the same thing. Steven Walling at work 03:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Meetup at Linux Cafe

Hello Risker, nice meeting you here. I have been wondering if adding names who actually attended that meeting would be an invasion of privacy. Obviously there are a few people who signed up but did not attend. What's your idea ? Thanks. I just went ahead adding a few names. -- Ktsquare (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably not an issue if they've already put their names on the list, including the lists added from the external site. I'd be hesitant to add the names of people who attended but did not include their name on the list; it's been my experience that some people choose not to include that information. And it was nice to meet you too, a very pleasant evening. Risker (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Risker. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Digital Leather

Risker, I didn't realise the situation re the article. Am comfortable with the unsalting and undeletion of the article. Have said as much at AN. Mjroots (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seems that actions have already been taken. It does not surprise me at all that people keep trying to create this article - the guy is on his way up, he's gotten a mainstream record deal now, has mentions in mainstream media, and so on. In 2006, there was valid reason to delete article attempts as spam and lacking notability. When his performances in NYC are now being noted by the New Yorker, we're no longer talking the Myspace band situation. We can't keep speedy deleting this article and whacking anyone who writes about him; this editor did exactly what you have recommended, and the article was reviewed by other editors and admins before it was moved into mainspace by an administrator who felt that it met the requirements. If you feel there is reason to delete the article, please take it to AfD. I am still not seeing the rationale at all in this editor being blocked; the article she developed bore little resemblance to the last version.

On a more humorous note, I'm starting to wonder if I've slipped through the looking glass - for all my reputation as a rabid deletionist, this is the third article in a row I've publicly come forward to say should be kept. Risker (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't let it worry you, I'm an inclusionist and I actually [voted "delete" at AfD this morning! Mjroots (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the other day User:Damiens.rf and I together voted to keep a non-free image, so yes, somehow the world must have turned upside down while we all weren't looking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources

I'm moving this here to let the ANI discussion conitnue - hope you're ok with that.

The problem with some of the articles that this cadre of editors is connected with is some of them lack secondary sources completely - as in the case of Russ Nelson. The only secondary source has the guy as a racist - which is exactly why I didn't whittle down the article to that.

Sure, the most reliable source for the list of directors at Toyota are primary sources from Toyota, but if that's all you have about someone then you really don't have much on the subject - unless you have a gang of folks trying to fabricate an article or groups of articles.

Regarding self-sources, if someone claims on their blog something on the order of "I've been programming in Java since 1985" on their web site, then it's clear they are just positioning as that is impossible. At the end of the day, blog posts about the authors are really lousy sources. I probably should have used much less sarcasm on ANI in making that point.

The bigger point here is there are a group of tech and open-source cogniscenti who are writing articles about each other with lousy sources. I believe this might be done to puff up each other's web presence but I have no evidence - just a group of lousy articles and indignant folks who aren't used to being challenged.

Sure, I didn't use my charm through all aspects of the discussion, but if you look at the evolution on the talk pages, the charm was dialed down after I tried to politely explain the issues. None of these guys are newcomers except for perhaps the most problematic of this group, Tech.contrarian (talk · contribs).

And you're right - I have come across tons of people trying to do all those things in my essay and I believe represents a fundamental flaw in biographies. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Toddst1,take a look at the histories of these articles. Most of them are 4 or 5 years old and were *not* started by the subjects themselves, and what we had there was hardly quality in most cases. It is the same with many of our biographies; they're so poor, and we as a community are so terribly unresponsive to perfectly reasonable corrections, improvements and concerns that many of the subjects of our articles have started to "fix" them themselves. I don't think we have a leg to stand on in alleging conflict of interest and implying intentional evil intent on "civilians" who just don't want their top google hit to be trash, full of tags that seem to proclaim to the world that the biography is nothing but a work of fiction and self-aggrandisement. That, in itself, becomes a form of BLP violation. I have no knowledge about the notability of anyone involved in software (it took me almost two minutes to remember that the Apple guy is Steve Jobs and the Microsoft guy is Bill Gates), and certain fields do not document their "stars" the way that popular media or sports or the nobility do. We have to find a way to locate information about these people, using nontraditional sources if necessary, or stick only to the most notable people. I understand your frustration, I really do; I'd venture to say, however, that perhaps some changes in tactics might be called for here. Some alternatives:

• focus on BLPs where you have sufficient knowledge of the subject to be a reasonable judge of notability
• try to avoid tags (especially the big banner-type ones) - if the article needs that much work, better to stub it and make notes on the talk page
• try communicating with one or more significant article content contributors
• discuss sourcing at the BLP or RS noticeboards, giving the *specific* example
• if the subject doesn't seem notable, try a BLP-prod or even an AFD
• if you're going to work in the area of BLPs of software programmers, develop some "editing buddies" with access to some of the more esoteric sources that would be considered reliable but might not be easily accessible

Just a few suggestions here. My gut instinct is that some of these people are actually quite notable, but for those without extensive knowledge of the field, we can't pick out the really important people. In some cases, the key facts about an individual might be able to be worked into another article (e.g., discussion of the developer of software in the article about said software), but that always runs the risk of getting BLP information messed up in a difficult-to-detect way because the article isn't marked as a BLP. Risker (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Henri Coanda defamation

Your reply to my arbitration request was that "community has been provided with some lower-level opportunities for resolution here, which I'd encourage be tried first". Could you please tell me those other opportunities as the ArbCom was suggested to me by the admin User:Amatulic. Thanks you, for any reply!--Lsorin (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Long post is long.

Hi Risker, hope you're well. I just wanted to drop by and see if can talk about Pending Changes with me?

I'm here because Rob (Lanphier) and the other tech folks working on this felt they needed someone who could devote some time to talking it through with the community, or as they put it, "we've enlisted Steven Walling from the Community Department to work on our behalf to make sure there is better alignment between the Foundation and volunteer wikimedians".

The Foundation tech staff are feeling in limbo. Right now the status is that they're waiting some clear direction from the community about where to take the feature. (See the February engineering update.)

The common ground here is that they agree we cannot continue a perpetual trial. It totally erodes community trust in the developers at the Foundation, and it's a waste of their time and donor funds to keep working on a feature the community doesn't really want to use.

I thought I'd ping you specifically because:

1. There's a new RfC up and running. So the community is clearly very ready to restart discussion about this.
2. You had a really good idea during the last straw poll.

You said, "The community should select a specific group of editors to assess the consensus; it should not be anyone associated with the WMF or the Board of Directors [sic], who have a vested interest."

Rob and I agree that this should definitely happen if we're going to have another RfC or poll.

If the WMF is going to end the trial cycle firmly and either keep and improve Pending Changes, or turn off it for the foreseeable future, then we need a rigorous and (most of all) trustworthy conversation. Not a poll Jimmy designs alone, or one that is unclear and hard for staff to take action based on.

So what I'm asking is: can you help form this group of editors to determine the final consensus? Having Jimmy or the Foundation just hand pick a group is a bad idea, but someone should make a shortlist of thoughtful and diligent people to ask. If you have changed your mind and think a kind of consensus jury is a terrible idea, I'd of course like to hear that too. In the meantime, I'm going to point a few people at this explanation and idea to see if they'd like to help form such a group too.

Thanks, and happy Friday! Obviously we can talk about this more over the weekend. Steven Walling at work 01:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Just as a reminder, the last major bug fixes on the feature were made in November. Since then we've been consumed by the fundraiser, 10th anniversary, the MediaWiki 1.17 release, and other work. That's been the general lay of the land about our work on the code directly.

Hmmm. Interesting.  Chzz  ►  12:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ralph Nader

When you fully protected the Ralph Nader page you inadvertently protected content from being restored that an IP user has been repeatedly removing against consensus on the talk page. The content is from the 'Criticism' section. Mystylplx (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Discuss it on the talk page of the article. Seems the IP editor felt it was more appropriate in a different article. There was a lot of strange additions and removals from the article, so the best place to straighten things out is the talk page. Risker (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Tried that. See the 'criticism' section of the talk page. The consensus was against him but he just keeps removing the content. The only additions and removals I saw was regarding the criticism section and the stuff about Naders Arabic name. The Arabic name thing is new. The constant removing of content from the criticism section has been going on for months. Mystylplx (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

KeepLocal image template

Hi Risker, I'm writing to everyone who commented (for or against) on the last deletion debate regarding the Keeplocal image template. This has been proposed for deletion again, and your input would be welcome. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_20#Template:KeepLocal. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, SlimVirgin. I've commented, as I am sure others will too, on both sides of the discussion. Classic example of trying to avoid a proper policy discussion by deleting the template that enables users to invoke that policy provision. I suppose I'd now best watchlist the relevant policy page.... Risker (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Risker. I think being forced to have to look out for images on the Commons would be one hurdle too many for a few people. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Taking a little break

For the next few weeks, I'll be stepping away from most of the mainstream Arbitration Committee matters. There are a few small tasks that I will participate in, but otherwise I will be inactive. Even arbitrators get to have the occasional holiday.

This is also an opportune time for me to say thank you to those who make this job worthwhile: my colleagues on the Committee, the clerks who deal with much of the grunt work, the administrators and editors who identify and often address issues that come to Arbcom/Oversight/CheckUser/AUSC attention, the editors who work to present content that we can all take pride in, the developers who make so many useful tools, the WMF staff who do genuinely care about this community and its growth and development, and those from all walks of wiki-life who find a moment for a friendly or supportive word. You're the reason I continue to log in. Risker (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Kittybrewster/Bryony

please comment on talk page. is she married? Kittybrewster ☎ 08:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

pass-out teh baked goodies

Gold Hat has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

User:Babelfisch

The above-named user has expressed issues with editing after having EnWP IPBE removed. Would you mind reviewing the case for IPBE for this user please?

Thanks! Kylu (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem has been solved, but I still wonder why MuZemike revoked the IP block exemption in the first place.

It took Wikipedia more than a year to accept the fact that users from China have to use proxies to edit and the IP block exemption had been working since May 2008, until MuZemike yesterday decided to have me blocked again.

What’s the verdict of the review, for the record? --Babelfisch (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Babelfisch, I am on holiday right now (the first real break I have taken in 2+ years that didn't involve a family crisis). Nonetheless, I have taken a look at what has happened here. IPBE is not intended, generally speaking, to be a permanent permission for users, with the possible exception of those who are editing from very specific known situations. You are in one of those situations; however, this was not apparent to the checkuser reviewing IPBE blocks, because the IP you have been using for some time has not been blocked, and because there was no indication in the action summary that granted you IPBE that you were editing in that type of situation. Your IPBE has been reinstated (two minutes after Kylu's post above), with an action summary that will make it clear to future reviewers why you do have this permission. I am sorry that you may have been inconvenienced temporarily. Risker (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you. I understand now that it was an oversight. Thanks for your concern and I hope you enjoy your holiday. --Babelfisch (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassador Program

Please take a look at this project page and see if you can be a mentor to one of the many Areas of Study. If you can, please put your name in the "Online Mentor" area of the Area of Study of your choice and then contact the students you will be working with. As the Coordinating Online Ambassador for this project, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm very flattered that you think I'd be good at this, Neutralhomer. However, I'm pretty tied up in other areas of the project at present and I don't think I have the time to devote to this experience right now. Risker (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Inactive at Arbcom

I just noticed that you were in the inactive column on the Arbcom page. You're still editing outside of Arbcom, but it still got me a bit worried. I hope you're alright and all. If not, get better. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries, Sven. I was traveling and knew I would not have reliable, secure internet access for much of that period - plus even arbitrators get to have a little bit of a holiday from time to time. I've just returned to full activity as of yesterday, although I will not be participating in the two cases that are now being voted on. Risker (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cmagha

Just a note that this case has been re-opened. I've added my findings, but would appreciate any review/input you may have. Cheers! TNXMan 16:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Email

Hi Risker. Hope you're well and enjoyed your recent travels. Just a note, but I've had "email this user" enabled for years, and as far as I can remember have never disabled it. Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  22:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Pedro, I am indeed well, and very much enjoyed the recent travels. I'll confess some denseness here, as I'm not entirely certain what you're referring to when you mention the "email this user" matter. My email is also enabled. Risker (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Risker. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Elockid ^(Talk) 02:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

AE sanction handling evidence

Hello, Risker. You have new messages at Coren's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm posting a request on Coren's page and CC:ing you, per NuclearWarfare's advice. --Ludwigs2 21:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see the merit of these editorialising personal remarks of Ludwigs2, which are a reopening of WP:ARBR&I as well as a personal attack on me unsupported by diffs. Little of Ludwigs2's evidence was taken into account in the ArbCom case and his statements here do not agree with the ArbCom findings. During the current case Ludwigs2 has made unsupported attacks on several other users involved in the case. Here is the latest example [22][23]. In addition prior to posting this, he made this posting on Ncmvocalist's page.[24] His intent seems to be to attack me and that has nothing to do with the current case. Mathsci (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Risker. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_.7BBasket_of_Puppies.7D.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Basket of Puppies 23:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

New evidence submitted

Hi, this is just to let you know that I have submitted two sections of evidence after the deadline because this evidence is based on edits that were themselves made after the deadline:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop#Hans Adler
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop#Dreadstar's unblock enables continued disruption by Ludwigs2

Regards,  Sandstein  06:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting - does this now mean that I get to submit further evidence refuting sandstein's rather wild accusation? It seems a bit odd suggesting that I'm being disruptive for something that never would have happened had he not blocked me in the first place. let me know if that's the way you want this to play out, and I'll do that tomorrow.

P.s., sorry for the duplicate on Coren's page. --Ludwigs2 07:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimbo Wales for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh my. Risker (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

3RR case

Hello Risker. Do you want to go ahead and close this report? WP:AN3#User:Phatboi96 reported by User:S43 (Result: ). The apparent closure was by User:Jasper Deng, a non-admin. (I have reverted his close). Per your comment there, I assume you would close this as 'Stale', which seems logical. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Erm...ummm... I am embarrassed to have to admit this, but I have never closed a 3RR report. It looks like it involves templates, which tend to give me some sort of allergic reaction. :-) There are some other weird things about the whole situation - it's a malformed request, made by an editor who has also made very very few contributions. There's definitely something going on at that article, but I can't quite make out what it is - whether it's just unsourced info, or if there is something else behind it. My suspicion is that, at minimum, a discussion with the "warned" editor about proper sourcing would be appropriate. If you could close it, I would be most appreciative. Risker (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, but I was thinking of blocking Phatboi96 indefinitely as a vandal-only account. Phatboi96 is repeatedly adding a claim that the musician Al Cisneros is a drug dealer. ('Dank' and 'nugs' are two forms of canabis, according to the Urban Dictionary). EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

And who said Wikipedia wasn't educational? ;-) Thank you for looking more closely at this situation; this sounds like the right outcome here. Risker (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Having reviewed his edits, I fully concur with you, and have indefinitely blocked him. Risker (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Note

The user called Mindbunny has made his IP address known via editing, if not downright owning up to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

fun, fun, fun

Looks like you guys are still having a ball over at AC. :). Hey, how you doing Risker? Hope all is well. — Ched :  ?  05:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Risker. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

More mail!

Hello, Risker. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me know if you got the first email, there should be two, although I'm not sure you got the first email.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I got them both, but not sure when I will be able to respond. Risker (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Call off the search?

Were you looking for this? There's no video and sound quality isn't great, but the Australian humor shines through. Geometry guy 23:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Oooh brilliant, Geometry guy! Yes, that was the one I was thinking of. I used to have another link to a version with better quality, but it's probably lost somewhere in the bowels of my old computer. Risker (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for retirement

I welcome you to do so. Let the community decide whether my occasional outbursts are worth retiring the most prolific contributor this website has ever had. Go for it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Nah, it will happen when it happens. I've just spent long enough observing the tolerance levels of the community to see when the level of tolerance starts to turn. You're at that point now; you can pull yourself back from the brink if you want to, but it requires a level of self-discipline that you're having a hard time exhibiting. It's all very sad. Risker (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm feeling offended right now that both you and Giano think I'm a troll but I'm strangely calm. The difference is that the tolerance levels and indefinate blocks are for editors who intentionally troll the site and intentionally make life tough and horrible for others. 99% of the time I am a genuinely good person who occaisonally if crossed is prone to losing his temper and saying some things which can be seen as uncivil. But anybody who knows me properly on wikipedia can vouch that I am neither a troll or a belligerent and would rather just get on with building an encyclopedia and stay well aware of trouble. What happened yesterday didn't exactly help my cause but most editors are aware that debates and conflicts can get heated. I'm actually one of the few here who genuinely want to build an encyclopedia to help further the cause of free knowledge and help cover parts of the world rarely covered in the anglosphere in the past!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thousands of editors are here to genuinely contribute; you are hardly "one of the few", and I hope you will understand that many people find it offensive that you're belittling their contributions. Please stop doing that.

I don't think you're a troll, I think you're burning out, as I have explained to you in private correspondence. Longterm editor burnout can be very harmful to both the editor and the project, particularly when the editor is not self-aware enough to differentiate what could be referred to as a "professional" disagreement amongst peers from a genuine personal affront. You received feedback from a large number of editors who have a long history of developing and maintaining high quality articles (including plenty with GA and FA flags) that there is no mandatory project-wide standard for infoboxes, and that in several areas of the project they have been found to be unhelpful. This was not personal, it was a discussion about quality of the project. On the other hand, your responses to this feedback (much of which was trying to explain to you the reason that infoboxes aren't considered mandatory throughout the project) became increasingly personal and insulting to other editors; at least two formally qualified as personal attacks, and you received warnings and advice to step back because of this. I repeat my recommendation to you: take a break from the project for a bit; when something that happens on Wikipedia causes you to behave in a way that could legitimately have forced your (temporary) removal from the project, it is time to reconsider your activity levels. Plant a garden, read a book, do the chores you've put off, visit an old friend, help out at the Spring Bazaar at the local community centre. Take the time to step away and revitalize yourself so that you are able to keep the project in perspective.

I have watched many valued editors lose perspective about the project and cause harm to their own reputations as well as to the project. Sometimes some firm but kind words from a respected colleague is sufficient for an editor on the verge of burnout to recognize that it's time for a break or to focus on a completely different area. Unfortunately, many people find it really hard to do this, and it falls to people without an established positive relationship to point out the issues. I suppose I fall into the second category with respect to you, Dr Blofield; however, please consider that my objective is not to run you off the project; it is to prevent you from flaming out in way that causes harm to both your own self-image and to other aspects of the project. Risker (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou Risker, but burn out? Blofeld? Really? I'm one of the last people likely to burnout. I have too much passion and enthusiaism flowing throw my veins.. When I go over the edge it generally lasts no more than an hour or two. I go away have a sleep or go out for a walk and its all blown over. I'm feeling perfectly clear headed and cool today, very disappointed right now thought that Giano doesn't see the potential of working with me, especially after the effort I've made with him. Sure I'm having to dealing with the consequences of yesterday's mishap and feeling it could have been avoided but given time if you really are around me you'll know that such behaviour is pretty rare and happens, maybe 3 times a year, max. The problem is that wikipedia is so huge and editors are so different that before long somebody crosses your path which has the potential to turn into something even worse... Whether is a nasty comment at an AFD or something. Actually there are numerous occasions in the past few months wehn my natural reaction has been to react to somebody but I've sorted of thought, mm this potentially could escalate so I refrian from doing so. On here clearly who have to do it ALL of the time or face the brunt of the repercussions. But it is often impossible to avoid, who'd have thought a Russian infobox simple procedure would turn into a heated discussion?. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't find it acceptable behaviour in an experienced editor to react to the rejection of an addition to the article by (1) making clearly defined personal attacks, (2) nominating for deletion a stub article by another editor who commented because you don't think there are enough references (3) nominating the original article for GA after making a handful of questionable additions to the article, over the objections of the primary editor, and clearly without being knowledgeable about the subject of the article. It's not impossible to avoid these situations, as every single point I have listed here is an action that you consciously undertook. All of the escalation was on your part. I was giving you an out by saying you were probably burning out. If you reject that hypothesis out of hand, then the only alternative that is left is that when someone disagrees with you, you become disruptive across several areas of the project. Risker (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I studied the Tsars and Russian Revolution and events at the Winter Palace at college. I'm a damn good researcher and am capable of producing high quality content on subjects I knew nothing about. I find is impossible to believe that you genuinely believe Giano's complete revert is appropriate. And please shut up about personal attacks, the only person responsible for those of late has been Giano, I've tried very hard to sort him out. The only people causing disruption to the betterment of our proportion of good articles on wikipedia here is you and Giano. His current version would not be promoted because of several OR claims and reference problems. My version, providing I completlely sorted out the refs and url links would very likely have passed. You have both illustrated to me very serious violations of WP:OWN. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have commented on this matter here [25]. I trust that Arbs and admins will ensure that this is the end of the matter. I don't intend to be insulted or trolled by this person again. I hope it will not be necessary for me to have to comment again. I will try to leave it to the Admins and arbs as I always being told to do. Giacomo Returned 12:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of slander

Is it within WP policy for users to make unsupported allegations of this kind on ArbCom case pages? I have made no allegations about Ludwigs2 of any kind on the ArbCom pages, beyond supplying diffs of incivility by Ludwigs2, verging on personal attacks. I would have no objection to all the dialogue concerning slander being removed entirely from the page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci, your continued participation in the case is unhelpful. Risker (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I have removed all content to the PD talk page apart from one word (five posts I think). I hope that makes the page more readable for you and other arbitrators. Apologies for any inconvenience. Mathsci (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI: request of NuclearWarfare [26] and my response [27]. (Not a very hard decision!) Mathsci (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

TB

Hello, Risker. You have new messages at Sven Manguard's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you

I just happened to see your recent actions with regard to the AN page, and I want to thank you for reminding people to keep a cool head. I don't know if you can help me, but I was hoping to learn how to find admins on Wikipedia. I recently asked an admin for help with an issue and it turned out quite badly, so I wanted to maybe screen them more in advance before asking one of the limited few admins I know of so far. I appreciate any help you can offer. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Two best ways to find an admin:

Hard way: Go to Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active, look for a familiar sounding name, post on their page.

Easy way: Click this button:#wikipedia-en ^connect, ask for an admin, explain issue in real time.

Sven Manguard Wha? 07:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

seeking your advice

Risker,

Would like your advice about an issue about Mathsci. When Mathsci's topic ban from race and intelligence articles was lifted in December, he promised ArbCom that he would stay out of disputes in the area. [28] When he's gotten involved in them again, you also reminded him that he should stop. [29]

But the R&I topic area is the only articles Mathsci has been involved in for the past week. As far as I can tell he isn't doing the same things that got him sanctioned in the R&I case, but he's being somewhat disruptive in a different way. When others have requested input from uninvolved editors at noticeboards, Mathsci has been taking over the discussions so that uninvolved editors can't keep up with him. The noticeboard threads just become extensions of the article talk page- where Mathsci is also heavily involved. Most recently this has been at the RS noticeboard: [30] In doing this, Mathsci is making it really hard to get input from uninvolved editors. Another editor involved in these articles has also complained about Mathsci doing this: [31]

I feel that Mathsci should not be involved in these articles at all, because his agreeing not to was why his topic ban was lifted to begin with. I was wondering if there was anything you or the other arbitrators can do about the fact that his current heavy involvement is now preventing noticeboard threads from serving their intended function. Thanks-SightWatcher (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi SightWatcher. I recused from this case at the time it was being heard by the Arbitration Committee, and so am not entirely familiar with Mathsci's agreement at that time. This does, however, appear to be something that might best be discussed with the Committee as a whole. I suggest that you consider filing a request for amendment of the case to address the concerns you are raising. I will not be participating in the discussion myself, as I consider myself to be bound by my initial recusal; generally speaking, however, these are the kinds of situations in which the Committee will typically review aspects of a case or consider applying additional remedies to one or more editors. If you find the process for filing an amendment request to be a bit difficult, I am sure that one of the active arbitration clerks will be able to help you with the "paperwork". Hope this is helpful. Risker (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have indicated privately to Risker about the meatpuppetry problems concerning SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2, of which ArbCom has been aware for some while. It is possible that that meatpuppetry also involves other users, for example the users that SightWatcher has recently contacted (Miradre? Boothello?). Mathsci (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Following my yearly wikibreak, I thought I had contracted chest flu [32], which later was diagnosed as acute bronchitis [33]. That cuts out any article editing except light edits that make no intellectual demands or humdrum summaries and copy-pastes such as those in the Noleander case (User:Mathsci/example, User:Mathsci/example1, and User:Mathsci/example2). I have never had bronchitis before, but that is why the banner is on my user page. Mathsci (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not see how possible meatpuppetry by other affects your promise to stay out of these articles. By posting here you have shown that you are now aware of the issue raised by SightWatcher. I hope you will follow your earlier promise and stay out of the area. I myself will take no further action as for now since I hope the situation will improve voluntarily.Miradre (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci, two things. There is no reason at all for you to be emailing me about this, you know full well I am recused on this case. Secondly, you promised the Arbitration Committee and the community that you would divorce yourself from this topic. I urge you to take those pages off your watchlist and stop looking at all. (Okay, one more thing. I do hope you are feeling better.)

Now, everyone who is involved in the R&I case, please clear off this page and either start an amendment request or move on. Risker (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

@Risker: the identity of meatpuppets can only be discussed off-wiki and this request directly concerned one meatpuppet. Thanks, Mathsci (talk)

Mathsci, neither of these points addresses mine. Why are you emailing me about it when you know I am recused, and why are you even aware that there may be "meatpuppets" (which I have gleaned means "people with the same opinion" in this case) if you are no longer involved in any way in this topic area? Actually, please don't answer that, just keep your promise to stay completely uninvolved in the topic and all will be good. Risker (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this with members of ArbCom who have information on the meatpuppetry. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Tomboys

Remember that little mess re: the "Tomboy and Girly Girl" image?

There's a bit of a fuss that's popped up on Commons. Come by IRC and I'll explain. DS (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to your message

Hi Risker. I am sorry if there has been any misunderstanding. Despite being recused on all matters concerning WP:ARBR&I, you nevertheless made a comment during a request for amendment to that case. [34] I imagine that was just a mistake. You did recuse prior to that here when ArbCom proposed lifting my topic ban.[35] I am sure the first comment was an oversight. If you were recused and unaware of any problems that had arisen with the case since its closure in August 2010, would it not have been a good idea to refer SightWatcher's query about the case to another non-recused member of ArbCom? I understand that in all this, you were just trying to be helpful, as you are always. Sometimes, however, things can be more complicated than appears at first sight. Charles Matthews was approached in a similar way by an IP, now range blocked, who was subsequently identified as a long term wikistalker (he has posted twice during the AE case, and four accounts have been indefinitely blocked within the last month). By approaching you, the user put you in an impossible situation. Regarding the current case, I have followed all your guidance the moment it was given. I apologize again if there has been any misunderstanding. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW the general comment to which you responded was removed entirely, because even when modified I felt that it was completely unfair to you and all that you do for wikipedia and wikipedians. My apologies. Mathsci (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I am quite willing to chart the project pages on which Ludwigs2 and I have interacted since WP:ARBR&I was closed. As far as I am aware, his interactions with me have been on his initiative and all related to that case. I will attempt to analyse my project space edits for that period, just in case of doubt. Mathsci (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly your interactions during the R&I situation, which even I couldn't help but notice as they were cropping up in several places, were troublesome. I am not saying one or the other of you was more "to blame" for that. And I'm not entirely certain what motivated you to become so active in this current case; it's never really been clear, as it does not appear that you have ever edited the article at the centre of the dispute. Risker (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:ARBR&I was settled by other arbitrators, apparently without your input, and the final findings are recorded on the case page. If you were recused, you would normally not have read the large amounts of evidence carefully as other arbitrators did. At present you appear to be giving personal opinions on that closed case which are not represented in any of the final findings. The only very distant reference to Ludwigs2 in those findings appears in WP:ARBR&I#Informal mediation. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Advice concerning involvement

Hello, thanks for your advice regarding the warning to Hans Adler. I hope you won't mind if I contact you here to seek further advice about the issue of "involvement" in this case. Apparently, you believe that the standard of WP:UNINVOLVED applies. As that policy says, "involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community", and in this light, I understand why you believe that I am involved with respect to remarks made in the context of a case involving me. But if that broad standard applies, why did the Committee explicitly establish a much narrower standard for involvement at WP:ARBPS#Discretionary sanctions, to wit:

"For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions."

Or in other words, if the broad standard of WP:UNINVOLVED applies, what is the meaning of the rule cited above?  Sandstein  21:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec with below) It might also be worth noting that this remedy passed by motion here, where one arbitrator expressly opposed it because it narrowed the definition of "involved". In other words, the history of the remedy shows that the Committee deliberately established a narrower standard of "involvement" insofar as the enforcement of this decision is concerned.  Sandstein  21:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein, I am actually rather shocked that you would take it upon yourself to issue an arbitration enforcement warning of any kind on any editor who is commenting on an arbitration case in which you are not only a party but where your administrator actions with respect to this specific discretionary sanction are being examined. If you have a concern about posts made to an arbitration case page, the appropriate action as a party to the case is to draw it to the attention of arbitration clerks and explain your concern. This is not an arbitration enforcement issue. Risker (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If I may just ask to clarify, then, your objections are not about my status as an uninvolved admin with respect to pseudoscience disputes or Hans Adler, but that I should have referred the matter to arbitration officials because it occurred in an arbitration context? I understand that concern, and will act accordingly in the future.  Sandstein  21:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein, you are currently a party to the highest level of dispute resolution we have on this project: an Arbitration Committee case. The case centers on your administrator actions with respect to a specific discretionary sanction. Hans Adler is one of the editors who has presented evidence in this case, and his evidence specifically revolves around your administrator actions. Unless I am missing something here, I believe that you, um...dispute...his perception of your actions. I have a hard time imagining how you cannot see that you are actively involved in a dispute that includes Hans Adler. That is issue #1 with your warning. The second issue is that parties to arbitration cases should not be considering taking administrator action against other participants in the same case, let alone warning the participants of their intention to do so; concerns go to the clerks or, if serious enough, directly to arbitrators. Thirdly, it appears that you wrote the warning specifically to make a point in relation to part of the proposed decision. This was not a positive development. Risker (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Risker, I understand these concerns. My intention was not to make a point but merely to straightforwardly address what I saw as problematic conduct. I considered it appropriate to do so given that the proposed decision does not provide for a finding saying that I erred in my enforcement actions, and that insofar there was no longer an active personal dispute between Hans Adler and me and concerning these enforcement actions, notably because he is not a party to the case and I did not seek to involve him in the case. (If you considered yourself involved with respect to any user who has ever disagreed with you for that reason alone, there would not much you could still do as an arbitrator). I therefore believed I could rely on the plain language of the rules defining involvement for the purpose of the relevant remedy. I consequently attempted to undertake AE in a manner consistent with the advice provided to me in the proposed decision, that is, by communicating my concerns more clearly.

In retrospect, though, in light of your comments and after re-reading Hans Adler's contributions with respect to this case, as well as my criticism of his evidence, all of which I had essentially forgotten about during this two-month case, I agree that it was inappropriate for me to attempt to act in an administrative capacity with respect to him in the context of this case, and I will not do so again.

My aim in engaging in AE is not to make points or to play power games with the various feuding groups – I do not care a bit about the disputes surrounding pseudoscience, or what have you. Instead, my aim is, as is presumably yours, to help suppress clearly disruptive behavior, such as personal attacks on others or edit-warring, in a hope that doing so facilitates productive editorial work in these topic areas. But it is becoming quite clear to me that several arbitrators believe that my attempts at assisting them in enforcing their decisions are not helpful, or are part of a problem rather than part of a solution. I respectfully disagree, but do not wish to impose my help if the Committee does not want it. I therefore repeat what I have already said to Jclemens: if you think that my AE actions in general are not helpful, please say so and I will cease them. For the foreseeable future, I have at any rate no intention of doing any more AE work, as this case makes clear that it is not a productive use of my time.  Sandstein  05:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You issued a very clear threat Sandstein, and that you thought that a proper thing to do says much about your fitness to be an administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 06:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein: I have to echo Risker's comments, and ask why you thought it was a good idea to do as you did? I'm glad that you realized that you weren't an uninvolved administrator in this issue, but I have to admit I have serious concerns. One of the findings in the ArbCom case is that you did not make a good job of communicating clearly, properly and respectfully. I abstained there up till now, because I didn't think it rose to the level requiring a finding.. but here, I see a similar issue arising, and it worries me.

Look, we both know AE sometimes requires hardline enforcement, I've been there, done that. AE faces every single problem area over and over and over. However, and I hesitate to use the phrase because it can be taken out of context but AE is not a License to Kill. I have concerns that too many times, your first reaction to every single problem is to pull out the heaviest weapon in your administrative arsenal and start swinging. While blocking Ludwigs2 for his threats was probably justifiable (in my opinion), was it the best possible way to handle it? We can't tell, hindsight is not 20/20 in this case. Even after Dreadstar apologized, said he handled the issue wrong, and wouldn't do it again, you came in requesting again the maximum sanction possible. With Hans, you may have seen a problem and you thought to take action, but you failed to think your action through and realize that "Yeah, this is probably not something that *I* should be doing, due to our common involvement in the ArbCom case..". As I said, I know the feeling, I've been there too, and I realized that I had to stop adminning in certain trouble areas because A) My trigger finger was getting a little too itchy, and B) I was looking for a maximum sanction each time, rather than an appropriate sanction.

You've said that you don't consider working in AE right now, as it's not a productive use of your time. I think that would be a good idea personally, give yourself a break from the pressure cooker and away from the habit of reaching for a sledgehammer when a smaller hammer would do, and allowing you to focus on improving your communications with others and finding the right balance in the use of your administrative tools. SirFozzie (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein, I think stepping away from arbitration enforcement would be a wise decision on your part. Risker (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

SirFozzie, I understand and agree with your comments. This does mean that you will need to look for other admins who are willing to deal with the degree of hatred and personal attacks typically exhibited in an AE context, and who are willing to do so with what I perceive as lukewarm or no support from the Committee. I wish you, without irony, good luck, because I am not sure that you will find many.  Sandstein  07:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear esteemed Arbitrators: I am wondering whether your advice to Sanstein is based on a pattern of his actions at WP:AE or only on a series of unfortunate decisions related to this case. It may well be that you have examined his record at AE and found that he has indeed become 'trigger-happy', so to speak, due to stress from hostile editors or whatever. I have sharply disagreed with him on a number of his decisions on AE page but to suggest that his participation in AE is unhelpful, you need to establish for yourselves that there is a pattern of unnecessarily draconian action. I am saying this because if you base your suggestions (and I know it is only suggestions) on events connected to this case, you may be throwing away the baby with the bathwater. Because, putting the stress and all this silliness aside, the sheer amount of work Sandstein is doing at AE is such that events of this ArbCom case, however visible to you, constitute a tiny proportion of his AE work. Finding replacement won't be easy. For the record, I do think that all four of his decisions connected to this case (block, filing ArbCom case, Dreadstar recommendation, Hans Adler warning) were, shall I say, less than optimal. - BorisG (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:125.162.150.88

In light of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editing_from_125.162.150.88 and [36], I request a clarification on Merridew's status - is Merridew blocked or banned? Which, if any accounts or IP addresses may Merridew edit from? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The editor who used the Jack Merridew account is not blocked or banned, although the account was globally blocked because he posted his password, and thus it was corrupted. He remains under an Arbitration Committee sanction to edit from a single account. He has at least one unblocked registered account, User:Gold Hat, although its userpage indicates it is "scuttled", whatever that means. Risker (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So assuming the IP is Merridew, is Merridew's editing from an IP address, rather than an identified account, acceptable? And what, exactly, does this mean: "agreement to edit from the one account is hereby withdrawn"? If Merridew is withdrawing his "agreement" to edit from one account, which is a part of his unban agreement, then is Merridew's ban back in place? (Again, under the assumption the IP is Merridew's, which I'm not sure is proven.) Gimmetoo (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

IP:125.162.150.88 is continuing a pattern of questionable editing. Again, if this is Merridew, what is the position of the arbitration committee? Gimmetoo (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The committee is discussing it. Risker (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocking policy

Hello — are you sure about r64228? Why couldn't Prodego self-unblock? (User talk:Prodego#Blocked Yourself????.) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC) — edited 06:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Umm, yes. I'm not sure why Prodego could not unblock himself. That patch was done in April 2010, and {unblockself} is part of our basic admin user rights on this project. I know for a fact that other admins have unblocked themselves during the interim. Risker (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh. Well thanks. Should this be looked into, or do you reckon it was just a glitch? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, Prodego indicates that a script was somehow involved; it may have something to do with it. He's probably in a relatively good position to make inquiries of the developers to figure out what's really happening, but I hope he'll report back. Risker (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

bugzilla:28352, apparently. Prodego ^talk 19:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Wonder if it's been properly committed. If not, perhaps pinging Happy-melon might be useful. Glad you managed to get unblocked. ;-) Risker (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I was on IRC, so there were many people to ask. I'd just be worried they all might refuse! Prodego ^talk 00:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)